Você está na página 1de 99

THE COLLABORATIVE LABELING AND

APPLIANCE STANDARDS PROGRAM

China Energy Efficiency


Round Robin Testing Results
for Room Air Conditioners
Cao Ning
China National Institute of Standardization
Andr Pierrot
CEIS
Nan Zhou
David Fridley
Nina Zheng
Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory
Environmental Energy Technologies Division

April 2010

This work was supported by the Ministry of Economy Trade and Industry and the Institute of
Energy Economics, Japan, through the Collaborative Labeling and Appliance Standards Program.

DISCLAIMER OF LIABILITY: Neither the United States Government nor the University of
California nor any of their employees, makes any warranty, express or implied, including the
warranties of fitness for a particular purpose, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for
the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any information disclosed herein.

ii

Table of Contents
I. Air Conditioner Round Robin Testing Results and Analysis by China National
Institute of Standardization .......................................................................................... 1
I.1

Background .................................................................................................................1

I.1.1
Chinas Energy Constraint Problem and the Need to Improve the Energy Efficiency of Energy
Consuming Products.................................................................................................................................. 1
I.1.2
The Need for Implementing the China Energy Efficiency Label System (CEELS) ................... 2
I.1.3
Developments in CEELS Implementation ........................................................................................ 2
I.1.4
The Need for Strengthening Energy Efficiency Testing Laboratories Management and
Facilities ...................................................................................................................................................... 3
I.1.5
Domestic and International Developments in Round Robin Testing .................................................. 4

I.2
Necessity and Feasibility of Conducting Energy Efficiency Round Robin Testing for
Air Conditioners ......................................................................................................................4
I.2.1
I.2.2

Necessity for Air Conditioner Round Robin Testing ......................................................................... 5


Project Feasibility .......................................................................................................................... 17

I.3

Project Significance ................................................................................................... 17

I.4

Developing the Implementation Scheme for Round Robin Testing .............................. 18

I.4.1
I.4.2

I.5
I.5.1
I.5.2
I.5.3
I.5.4
I.5.5

I.6
I.6.1
I.6.2
I.6.3

I.7

Development Process for the Implementation Scheme .................................................................... 18


Content of Implementation Scheme................................................................................................ 19

Project Organization and Execution .......................................................................... 27


Sample Customization ................................................................................................................... 27
Sample Delivery and Pre-Testing Preparation Work ....................................................................... 27
Project Kick-Off Meeting .............................................................................................................. 28
Conducting the Energy Efficiency Round Robin Testing ................................................................ 28
Participation of International Expert ............................................................................................... 28

RRT Results and Analysis .......................................................................................... 28


Data Collection, Analysis and Result Evaluation Method ............................................................... 29
Evaluation and Analysis of Test Results ......................................................................................... 30
Overall Evaluation of Round Robin Testing ................................................................................... 36

Proposals for Enhancing Test Laboratory Capabilities and Facilities ........................ 37

II. International Expert Analysis of Round Robin Testing (Andr Pierrot) .......... 38
II.1

Results ....................................................................................................................... 38

II.2

Analysis of Results ..................................................................................................... 39

II.2.1
II.2.2
II.2.3
II.2.4
II.2.5
II.2.6

II.3
II.3.1
II.3.2
II.3.3

II.4

General Analysis ........................................................................................................................... 39


Methodology ................................................................................................................................. 40
Results by Sample ......................................................................................................................... 42
Results by Laboratory .................................................................................................................... 50
Uncertainties Calculations ............................................................................................................. 53
Conclusions on Test Results........................................................................................................... 57

Evaluation of the Test Facilities ................................................................................. 59


General Comments ........................................................................................................................ 59
Comments on Individual Laboratories ............................................................................................ 61
Guidelines to Improving Quality of the Tests ................................................................................. 65

Comparison with JRAIA Laboratory Results .............................................................. 72


iii

II.5

Conclusions of the Study ............................................................................................ 74

II.6

Appendix A: Basic Results ......................................................................................... 76

II.6.1
II.6.2
II.6.3
II.6.4

II.7
II.7.1
II.7.2
II.7.3
II.7.4

II.8
II.8.1
II.8.2
II.8.3
II.8.4

II.9
II.9.1
II.9.2
II.9.3
II.9.4

Laboratory 1 .................................................................................................................................. 76
Laboratory 2 .................................................................................................................................. 77
Laboratory 3 .................................................................................................................................. 78
Laboratory 4 .................................................................................................................................. 79

Appendix B: Results By Sample.................................................................................. 80


Sample 1 ....................................................................................................................................... 80
Sample 2 ....................................................................................................................................... 81
Sample 3 ....................................................................................................................................... 83
Sample 4 ....................................................................................................................................... 84

Appendix C: Results by Laboratory ........................................................................... 86


Laboratory 1 .................................................................................................................................. 86
Laboratory 2 .................................................................................................................................. 87
Laboratory 3 .................................................................................................................................. 88
Laboratory 4 .................................................................................................................................. 89

Appendix D: Uncertainties Calculations .................................................................... 90


Laboratory 1 .................................................................................................................................. 90
Laboratory 2 .................................................................................................................................. 91
Laboratory 3 .................................................................................................................................. 92
Laboratory 4 .................................................................................................................................. 93

iv

List of Tables

Table 1 Energy Efficiency Ratings in Current Room Air Conditioner Energy Efficiency Standard
................................................................................................................................................. 16
Table 2 Air Conditioner Energy Efficiency Limit Values Implemented in 2009 ........................ 16
Table 3 Catalog of Reported Data by Participating Laboratories ................................................ 31
Table 4 Statistical Results for Test Data .................................................................................... 34
Table 5 Statistical Results of Test Data in Percentages .............................................................. 35
Table 6 Distribution of Test Result Types by Test Item ............................................................. 35
Table 7 Distribution of Test Result Types by Laboratory........................................................... 36
Table 8: Tests Performed During the Round Robin Test ............................................................ 38
Table 9 Variations Allowed During Steady-state Cooling and Heating Capacity Tests .............. 39
Table 10 Maximum Differences for Sample 1 ........................................................................... 42
Table 11 Differences between Test Methods for Sample 1 ........................................................ 43
Table 12 Maximum Differences for Sample 2 ........................................................................... 44
Table 13 Difference between Test Methods for Sample 2 .......................................................... 45
Table 14 Maximum Differences for Sample 3 ........................................................................... 45
Table 15 Differences between Test Methods for Sample 3 ........................................................ 46
Table 16 Maximum Differences for Sample 4 ........................................................................... 47
Table 17 Differences between Test Methods for Sample 4 ........................................................ 47
Table 18 Overall Maximum Differences for the Four Samples .................................................. 48
Table 19 Average Differences for Laboratory 1 ......................................................................... 50
Table 20 Average Differences for Laboratory 2 ......................................................................... 51
Table 21 Average Differences for Laboratory 3 ........................................................................ 51
Table 22: Average Differences for Laboratory 4 ........................................................................ 52
Table 23 Average Uncertainties for Laboratory 1 ...................................................................... 54
Table 24 Average Uncertainties for Laboratory 3 ...................................................................... 54
Table 25 Average Uncertainties for Laboratory 4 ...................................................................... 54
Table 26 Declared Uncertainties of Individual Measurements ................................................... 55
Table 27 Average Uncertainties by Parameter and Test Method ................................................ 56
Table 28 Simulation for a Difference of 10% in the Indoor Airflow Rate ................................ 58
Table 29 Components of Uncertainties for Individual Measurements ........................................ 69
Table 30 Comparison of Results in Cooling Mode for Sample 3................................................ 72
Table 31 Comparison of Results in Heating Mode for Sample 3 ................................................ 73
Table 32 Comparison of Results in Cooling Mode for Sample 4................................................ 73
Table 33 Comparison of Results in Heating Mode for Sample 4 ................................................ 73

List of Figures

Figure 1 Production Volume of Room Air Conditioners in China ................................................7


Figure 2 Flow Chart of Sample Selection Process...................................................................... 20
Figure 3 Flow Path of Testing Process ...................................................................................... 22
Figure 4 Side View (Upper Figure) and Top View (Lower Figure) of Sample Installation ......... 22
Figure 5 Refrigerant Piping Without and With Thermal Insulation ............................................ 59
Figure 6 Air Enthalpy Method at Laboratory 1 .......................................................................... 62
Figure 7 Indoor Room Air Sampling ......................................................................................... 62
Figure 8 Air Enthalpy Method at Laboratory 2 .......................................................................... 63
Figure 9 Air Enthalpy Method at Laboratory 3 .......................................................................... 64
Figure 10 Air Sampling Outdoor Side at Laboratory 3 ............................................................... 64
Figure 11 Discharge Chamber Requirements for Indoor Air Enthalpy Test Method ................... 68

vi

I.

I.1

Air Conditioner Round Robin Testing Results and


Analysis by China National Institute of Standardization
BACKGROUND

I.1.1 Chinas Energy Constraint Problem and the Need to Improve the
Energy Efficiency of Energy Consuming Products
In recent years China's energy consumption has increased rapidly. The contradiction between economic development and energy and environmental resources has become increasingly acute, making energy conservation and consumption reduction a society-wide
concern.
Energy consuming products and equipment account for about 50% of Chinas total energy consumption1. Electricity consumption of air conditioners, for example, accounts for
about 20% of China's total electricity consumption and 40% of the summer electricity
peak load in large and medium cities. However, less than 5% of units sold in the domestic
market in 2009 reached the standards highly efficient level of grade two or above. Improving the energy efficiency and augmenting the market share of market-dominant
energy consuming products is of significant importance to achieving Chinas energy saving and emission reduction target and is an effective means to deal with energy and environmental constraints and climate change issues.
In order to accelerate Chinas energy conservation and emission reduction work, the National Leading Group to Address Climate Change, Energy Conservation and Emission
Reduction was founded with Premier Wen Jiabao as the head, and the "Comprehensive
Work Program of Energy Conservation and Emission Reduction" and "China's National
Program of Addressing Climate Change " were issued, under which Chinas energy conservation and emission reduction work has been deployed.
In addition, the Chinese government established a goal of a 20% decrease in energy consumption per unit GDP in the "Eleventh Five-year Development Plan. In November
2009, in order to support global greenhouse gas emission reduction activities and promote Chinas low carbon economic development, the government established a further
40-50% reduction in energy consumption per unit GDP by 2020 compared to the year
2005.

Main energy consuming products generally include widely-used home appliances, industrial equipment,
office equipment, and transportation vehicles.

I.1.2

The Need for Implementing the China Energy Efficiency Label System (CEELS)

Alongside MEPS (minimum energy performance standards), the implementation of the


energy efficiency labeling system in China is an important part of the governments energy-saving, market-oriented management efforts, as well as an effective way to promote
enterprises energy-saving technologies, the continuous improvement of product energy
efficiency through market mechanisms, an urgent necessity for the standardization of
product markets and the creation of fair markets, and a key in improving the quality and
market competitiveness of Chinas products and addressing green trade barriers. The implementation of the energy efficiency label system in China has great significance in improving the energy efficiency of energy-consuming equipment, improving buyers
awareness of the need for energy saving, accelerating the building of an energy-saving
society and addressing the energy constraint contradictions encountered in building a
well-off society.

I.1.3 Developments in CEELS Implementation


The Administration Regulation on Energy Efficiency Labels, promulgated on the 1st of
March 2005 marked the formal establishment of CEELS in China. The implementation of
CEELS is based on enterprise self-declaring plus information recording plus market supervision. Enterprise self-declaration is the key feature of CEELS, and calls for the enterprise to arrange product energy efficiency testing, determine the label information by
itself according to the testing results and relevant standards, apply the label by itself, and
to be responsible for the accuracy of the label information. The recording of EEL information is the main management measure, and includes the verification and publication
of EEL information. The market supervision measure is a means to ensure the effective
implementation of CEELS.
Currently, the CEELS covers 19 products in 4 major fields2. Based on the active efforts
and cooperation of all parties, the implementation of CEELS has leading to outstanding
economic and social benefits. The government has put more and more emphasis on
CEELS, with energy efficiency labeling has been carried out for 19 types of products in 5
batches successively in China ever since the first products catalogue was issued in November 20043.
2

These product fields are household appliances, industrial equipment, lighting equipment and office
equipment and include products such as room air-conditioners, household refrigerators, electric washing
machines, individual air-conditioners, self-ballasted fluorescent lamps, high pressure sodium lamps, gas
water heaters, water chiller units, small and medium-sized three-phase asynchronous motors, variable speed
room air-conditioners, multi-connected air-conditioner (heat pump) units, household induction stoves, electric water heaters, computer monitors, photocopiers, air compressors, AC contactors, automatic rice cookers, and AC electric fans.
3
So far, the number of enterprises with products recorded by China Energy Label Center (CELC) exceeds
1,600; the number of product models recorded by CELC exceeds 80,000; and over 300 laboratories are also

After implementing the energy efficiency labeling system for over four years, more than
90 billion kilowatt hours of electricity have been saved, which can be converted to more
than 30.00 million tons standard coal. Thus CEELS goes far towards the realization of the
energy saving and consumption reduction targets measured by energy consumption per
unit GDP in the The 11th Five-Year Plan.
The energy efficiency of energy consuming products has effectively improved and the
markets for such products are increasingly transforming into high-efficiency product
markets. According to statistics, compared to the year 2005 (before the implementation of
CEELS), the average energy efficiency level of air conditioners has increased by 6.4%,
and the market share of high efficiency air conditioners increased from less than 1% to
5%. The average energy efficiency of household refrigerators has been increased by
4.98%, and the market share of energy-efficient refrigerators accounts for more than 80%
at present.
Additionally, a legal foundation has been established. In the newly revised Energy Conservation Law of Peoples Republic of China and the Circular Economy Promotion
Law of the People's Republic of China, the provisions relating to energy efficiency labeling have been added, and the management mechanism and penalty methods have been
clearly defined, thus establishing the legal foundation for incorporating the energy efficiency labeling system as an important national energy saving management measure.

I.1.4 The Need for Strengthening Energy Efficiency Testing Laboratories


Management and Facilities
Enterprise self-declaration is the key feature of CEELS and includes the enterprises
self-testing of energy efficiency indicators, determining the label information by itself
according to the test results and relevant standards, applying the label, being responsible
for the accuracy of the label, and simultaneously accepting supervision and inspection.
In recent years, through several random market inspections and investigations of national
and local supervision departments, some enterprises and third-party laboratories were
found to not have sufficient energy efficiency testing capacity and to be making false reports about the testing equipment and their capability to CELC, thus bringing into question the veracity of the energy efficiency label system and disturbing the fair market environment. In addition, through yearly investigations and research on testing enterprises, it
has been found that each enterprise apparently has greatly different testing scopes and
laboratory capabilities4. Thus the reliability of data for such products is low. It follows
recorded by CELC. The China National Institute of Standardization (CNIS) has started to research and prepare the sixth products catalogue, and plans to increase the number of product types covered by CEELS to
more than 20.
4
For some products, there are a large number of small-scale manufacturers, and energy efficiency testing
laboratories for such products have failed to meet the levels of management, equipment and personnel
needed for testing.

that the urgent task at present is to improve the testing capabilities of related enterprises
and third-party laboratories through regulating their management, improving the testing
facilities, and enhancing the operation skills and number of personnel.

I.1.5 Domestic and International Developments in Round Robin Testing


In round robin testing, two or more laboratories test the same or similar samples according to pre-determined conditions. The testing process and results are also evaluated in
order to check the operational conditions of laboratory devices, thus ascertaining the testing capacities of the laboratories in question, ensuring the accuracy of testing data and
continued reliability of testing results, improving the quality and testing skills of related
personnel, and identifying existing problems and disparities in the methods or circumstances of other laboratories. If a laboratorys testing results are satisfactory, it indicates
that the integrated indicators of testing technologies and equipment meet related requirements, and the laboratory conditions should be maintained and consolidated. If a laboratorys testing results consistently have outliers, the laboratory should take effective corrective and preventive measures to avoid future testing errors.
Compared with other quality control methodologies, round robin testing is scientific,
simple, practical, and is the internationally accepted model of capacity verification. It has
been adopted by many developed countries, and there are many case studies and best
practice lessons to inform the refinement of laboratory capacity. In domestic and international laboratory accreditation activities, a laboratorys testing capabilities are evaluated
by conducting round robin tests5. In domestic and international large-scale monitoring
projects, quality control procedures are analyzed using round robin testing after confirming that all the participant laboratories have met related requirements for round robin testing, including personnel skills, reference values, internal quality control requirements,
and sample assessments inspections to ensure that the results can be reasonably evaluated.
I.2

NECESSITY AND FEASIBILITY OF CONDUCTING ENERGY EFFICIENCY ROUND


ROBIN TESTING FOR AIR CONDITIONERS

The necessity and feasibility of conducting consistent comparisons of the energy efficiency testing data for room air conditioner shall be analyzed in the context of the air
conditioning industry, the profile of the market, the products energy consumption status,
5

International policy documents related to this effort include ISO/IEC Guide 43:1997 Proficiency Testing
by Inter-laboratory Comparisons ", Requirements for Proficiency Testing Organizers developed by the
International Laboratory Accreditation Cooperation (ILAC), the APLACPT001 Calibration Laboratories
Comparison, the APLACPT002 Testing Laboratories Comparison and Requirements for Mutual Recognition developed by the Asia Pacific Laboratory Accreditation Cooperation (APLAC). In China, the China
National Accreditation Committee for Laboratories (CNACL) revised National Standard GB/T 15483-1995
for comparative testing, and clearly stated in the national laboratory accreditation guideline that laboratories should regularly carry out round robin testing.

their energy-saving contribution, testing technology levels, test conditions and capacities,
international energy efficiency standard and labeling schemes for such products, the attitudes of relative parties, the accumulation of practical experiences during previous comparison, etc.
Room air conditioners are a mature technology in a mature industry and market, with a
wide range of usage, fast growing production, large energy consumption and great energy-saving contribution. However, testing technology is not unified, and differences are
apparent in laboratory testing facility conditions and capabilities. Furthermore, international air conditioner energy efficiency standards and labeling efforts lack international
alignment. These factors all highlight the urgency and importance of conducting consistent comparisons of energy efficiency testing data from room air conditioners, and thus
improving laboratory testing capabilities and ensuring the accuracy of energy efficiency
labeling information.
Conducting round-robin testing of room air conditioners energy efficiency data is a
means towards the self-development and improvement of the air conditioning industry
and the transformation of our markets towards energy-efficient products; an effective
way to improve the energy efficiency testing capabilities of laboratories in China; a necessary guarantee for the effective implementation of CEELS; and an essential impetus
for the coordination and mutual recognition of international standards and labeling.

I.2.1 Necessity for Air Conditioner Round Robin Testing


I.2.1.1 Air Conditioning Industry and Market Profile

I.2.1.1.1 Air Conditioning Industry Profile


Chinas air conditioning industry started in the 1950s and developed through the acquisition of techniques from the former Soviet Union. Prior to Chinas reform and opening up,
the industry was at a low level of development. After the 1980s, with economic reforms
and growing international trade, Chinas air conditioner market began to expand rapidly.
The high profits and huge market potential of the early years of industry development and
expansion attracted private capital, which led to a sellers market. This further created a
larger number of domestic air conditioning product manufacturers with large scale and
capability, and thus started the rise of Chinas air conditioning industry.
Since the 1990s, a large group of foreign companies began to enter China, which promoted the intense competition in Chinese markets, and furthered the progress and improvement of the industry. It is in this particular situation that China became the second
largest room air conditioner consumer market and the largest producer of air conditioners
around the world only after just over 10 years of development. According to statistics,
over the past 10 years, Chinas air conditioning industry had maintained an average

growth rate of 30% per annum6. After the long period of rapid growth, many enterprises
have started to face a new round of operations restructuring and product design adjustment in recent years. Therefore the industry annual growth rate is expected to drop
slightly compared to the previous peak period, but will remain at about 15%.
At present, China exports air conditioners to more than 200 countries and regions around
the world. In 2007, China exported USD 100 million worth of air conditioner products to
14 major countries and regions7. The American market accounts for one-fifth of Chinas
room air conditioner exports, followed by Japan and Hong Kong, and the corresponding
export amounts are USD 1,259 million, USD 523 million and USD 395 million, respectively, in total accounting for 34.28% of Chinas air conditioner exports.
Currently, the rising price of raw material inputs for air conditioner and the decline of
product market prices are presenting challenges to the Chinese domestic air conditioners
market. Brands within the domestic air conditioner market will become further concentrated and competitive advantages will be attained through technology innovation and
brand recognition, and market share will further concentrate in a few superior enterprises.
Moreover, industry profits have been falling. Data from the National Bureau of Statistics
shows that the average profit margin for air conditioners has dropped by nearly 50% in
four years.

I.2.1.1.2 Air Conditioner Market Profile


Room Air Conditioner
Chinas room air conditioning industry is one of the fastest developing industries in the
post-reform and opening up period, and its growth has dramatically affected the country
and peoples livelihood. Over the past 20 years, product quantity, number of enterprises,
production and sales and market holdings have all grown rapidly, bringing numerous and
unexpected changes. Air conditioners have transformed from the exclusively luxury status of the past to an everyday product while product price, variety, quality and the like
have all seen significant changes and market competition is extremely fierce.
The following figure shows the changes in production and export volumes of room air
conditioners of China over the years.

By 2005, the annual output of the whole industry was nearly RMB 230 billion with exports of more than
USD 5 billion.
7
Such as United States, Japan, Hong Kong, Italy, Spain, etc., and newly adding four more countries (including Russia, India, and Venezuela) to the USD 100+ million list.

Units sold (ten-thousands)

Figure 1 Production Volume of Room Air Conditioners in China

Year

The main users of room air conditioners are residential households. According to market
data gathered in June 2009, Grades 3 to 5 low energy efficiency products are still the dominant products in Chinas fixed-frequency room air conditioners market, accounting
more than 85% of total market share, while the market share of Grades 1 and 2 high
energy efficiency products was only about 6%. The market share of inverter room air
conditioners has always been small at about 8%.
Low energy efficiency and inflated prices could be used to describe the current air conditioner market context. First, when it comes to implementing energy-saving design
measures, Chinas air conditioner manufacturers have always lacked internal impetus and
external pressure. In addition, due to the price war caused by long-term and disordered
fierce competition, the energy efficiency of air conditioning products is actually declining
year-by-year. There are significant gaps between the energy efficiency of air conditioning
products produced domestically and those produced in advanced developed countries.
This disparity is especially noticeable in the products of some small and medium sized
Chinese enterprises and in specially-priced products. Those inefficient products consume a lot of energy and lead to the generally low average energy efficiency level of
Chinas current air conditioner market.
Since the implementation of the Energy-Efficient Products Subsidy Project policy on
June 1, 2009, the air conditioner market has been indicating an obvious trend of transformation to an energy-efficient products market. Almost all the major air conditioner
enterprises have stopped producing Grades 4 and 5 products and a low number of Grade
3 products are produced mostly to support the national Household Appliances to the
7

Countryside program. Major vendors like Gome, Suning, etc. have completely stop selling low energy-efficiency products. At present, the market share of Grades 1 and 2 fixedfrequency energy-efficient room air conditioners is more than 40%, and is expected to
reach 50% or even nearly 70% next year.
So far, 27 enterprises and 4,317 models of energy-efficient room air conditioners have
been included in the financial subsidies promotion directory. Under the subsidies program, in the second half of 2009, 5 million units sold were as energy-efficient air conditioners, which is five times the total number sold the previous year. The price of energyefficient air conditioners with a cooling capacity (CC) of 3,486 W decreased by more
than RMB 1,000 on average, and the price of these units is now at the same level as that
of the inefficient air conditioners with the same CC specifications. State financial subsidies are both accelerating the elimination of inefficient air conditioners in China and increasing the overall energy efficiency level of air conditioners by 15%. Extrapolating
from the 5 million energy-efficient air conditioners promoted and used last year, it is estimated that China can save 15 terawatt hours of power every year and reduce the emission of 1.4 million tonnes carbon dioxide and 6000 tonnes sulfur dioxide.
In addition, another kind of room air conditioner product is the inverter air conditioner,
which adopts some other technologies such as AC inversion and DC speed adjustment to
quickly change the compressor speed, to achieve energy-efficient adjustable cooling capacity. The core technology inputs of the inverter air conditioner, such as the compressor
and inverters, depend on imports. The market share of inverter air conditioner is small
with a total output of about 200 million units. The sale price is about RMB 1,000 higher
than that of the ordinary air conditioner, which is the main cause of this technologys low
market share. We note that although the Energy-Efficient Products Subsidy Project policy currently only offers financial subsidies for fixed-frequency air conditioners, the market share of inverter air conditioner has not dropped. On the contrary, this technologys
market share shows an increasing trend when sellers lower their sale prices, reaching
about 15% now, among which the market share of Grade 1 and 2 energy-efficient inverter air conditioner is about 4%, accounting for about 25% of sold inverter air conditioner
units. We believe this to be mainly because the inverter air conditioner represents the development direction of air conditioner energy-saving technology, and enterprises are
aware that inverter air conditioners will dominate the air conditioner market in the future.
Unit-Type Air Conditioner
The main users of the unit-type air conditioner are commercial customers. At present, the
unit-type air conditioner market in China is dominated by energy efficiency Grades 4 and
5 units, but the share of products above Grade 2 is gradually increasing due to the continuous building energy use enhancements. However, rising production costs may result in
rising sales prices.
VRF Air Conditioner

The main users of VRF air conditioners are commercial users and large-scale households,
and VRF air conditioners usually require professional handling.

I.2.1.1.3 Necessity Analysis


Product technology and quality are both greatly increasing as the air conditioning industry rapidly develops, the standard system is gradually improved, the testing methods are
gradually popularized, international trade increases, and certification and labeling activities are widely upheld. Under the Chinese national financial subsidy policy, the market
trend is increasingly towards energy efficiency. Energy efficient products have become
prominent in the market, and energy efficiency performance is an index by which such
products are being judged. The production and sales of such products depend on the effectiveness of market supervision, and thus the market is directly determined by the skill
level of energy efficiency testing at laboratories. Therefore, using consistent comparison
activities to vigorously check the accuracy of energy efficiency testing data will guarantee the accuracy and authority of the energy efficiency labeling information, ensure the
effective implementation of the national financial subsidy policy, and help speed the
market transformation to energy-efficient air conditioning products. In short, this comparison project is validated by the contexts of both the air conditioner industry and the market for these products.
I.2.1.2 Energy Consumption and Energy Saving Potential of Air Conditioners

I.2.1.2.1 Analysis of Energy Consumption and Energy-Saving Potential


Energy consumption in China has increased 5% per year since 1985, and electricity consumption has increased even faster, along with accelerated industrialization and urbanization in this period. Energy efficient air conditioners have become a main target of government energy-saving and enterprises technology development activities.
The air conditioner market in China developed rapidly and has become the third largest
air conditioner market following the United States and Japan, accounting for 12% of the
world air conditioner market share. At present time, the annual sales volume of air conditioners is increasing year-by-year, with annual power consumption of air conditioners up
to 100 billion kWh. At the same time, air conditioner use accounts for about 40% of peak
electricity load, which aggravates the peak-valley difference and reduces the grid load
factor, resulting in the policy of switching off power grids to limit power usage in 2/3
provinces in China in 2003.
Energy savings potential of air conditioners is substantial. Air conditioner systems in
buildings in China take up 40% to 60% of the total power consumption of the entire
building. At least half of the total energy-saving potential in China (estimated at over
RMB 30 billion every year) could be saved through air conditioner energy savings. Total
air conditioner output in China surpassed 90 million units in 2008. It is estimated that

when China realizes a fully middle-class society in 2020, the amount of energy saved
by reducing the air conditioner peak load in China will be about 90 million kW. These
savings are equal to the full load capacity of 5 Three Gorges power stations, and are 2 to
3 times the planned total installed nuclear capacity for 2020. Such energy savings would
thus result in a RMB 400 billion savings in electric power station construction investments.

I.2.1.2.2 Necessity Analysis


The energy consumption and energy-saving potential of air conditioning products are
large, so the promotion and application of energy-efficient products is of great significance to the cause of Chinas energy conservation and emission reduction. Running consistent comparisons of air conditioner testing data can effectively promote the improvement of the energy efficiency testing capacities of laboratories, the effective implementation of the energy efficiency labeling system, and the market transformation to energyefficient products, and is of great significance to promote Chinas energy conservation
and emission reduction efforts.
I.2.1.3 Status of Room Air Conditioner Energy Efficiency Testing Technology

I.2.1.3.1 Status of Energy Efficiency Testing Technology


The air enthalpy method and model room calorimeter method have been generally
adopted in Chinas energy efficiency testing laboratories.
The air enthalpy method calculates the enthalpy difference of the incoming and outgoing
air by measuring the dry and wet bulb temperatures of the incoming and outgoing air of
the air conditioner, and then obtains the cooling capacity of the unit by multiplying the
measured air flow by the enthalpy difference.
The model room calorimeter method is an important method for measuring the cooling
capacity or heating capacity of the room air conditioner. Compared with the air enthalpy
method, the special feature of the model room calorimeter method is that the working
state of room air conditioner during testing and the working state in actual application are
comparatively consistent. The principle of this method is a heat balance calculation, the
basic concept of which is the total heat added to the insulated model room calorimeter is
equal to the total cooling capacity. Whereas, the total heat taken away from the insulated
model room calorimeter equals the total heating capacity.
If properly designed, the application scope of the balanced environment model room calorimeter can be expanded upon, and the model room calorimeter can meet the requirements of other performance tests and the related safety performance test for room air
conditioners. In the past, because of notable technical difficulties in device design and the
high cost of construction, most manufacturing plants and testing units of room air condi-

10

tioners in China adopted a non-standard air-duct heat balance measuring device or a enthalpy difference measuring device to perform the test. Many laboratories also do not
have the practical experience of conducting the energy efficiency test by the model room
heat calorimeter method and cannot master the testing technology.

I.2.1.3.2 Necessity Analysis


Developing energy efficiency round robin testing for room air conditioner can promote
communication and enhance testing technologies in all laboratories, and can greatly advance the development of air conditioner testing technology.
I.2.1.4 Air Conditioner Testing Facilities and Capabilities

I.2.1.4.1 Testing Facilities and Capabilities


The demand for industry development always promotes technological progress, while
technological progress and the occurrence of new products always necessitate new technology testing requirements. Firms have a clearer understanding of the significance of
strengthening self-owned test conditions, along with the establishment and improvement
of testing standards, as well as the strengthening of market competition and international
technology exchanges. Many enterprises have, since the end of the 1990s, spontaneously
increase investments in product test methods8.
Test conditions help the enterprise to gradually improve their ability to conduct independent research, develop technological capabilities and increase core competitiveness. Related fields are undergoing transformation due to the rapid development of computer and
electronic technology and implementation in test device construction. Presently, various
product test devices are fully automated in controlling operating conditions, adjusting
various environmental parameters and data acquisition and analysis. The data can even be
transmitted to other computers through networks to provide the user with valuable information gleaned through various analyses and comparisons. Therefore, the speed of new
product development and the level of product performance can be greatly enhanced, effectively guaranteeing product quality and resulting in progress and prosperity for the industry.
The domestic household air conditioning industry has formed a batch of key production
firms characterized by large production scales, strong product development and testing
capabilities, high brand awareness and stable product quality. Some firms still lack product development ability and product performance testing capability. These enterprises
neither have product performance testing capability nor do they entrust their products to
third-party laboratory testing and therefore it is more likely that the performance indexes
on the labels of such products are inaccurate.
8

At present, many enterprises in the industry invest more than 10 million RMB in the facilities of their own
product testing centers.

11

Market research results and actual testing data show that even among the one or two hundred units of special air conditioner performance testing equipment presently used by
domestic enterprises, there is still a large proportion which output poor test results with
large data deviations in repeated tests. However, inconsistent testing data also comes
from the testing equipment of large firms which was manufactured by well-known foreign companies. The reasons for such measurement deviations amongst testing equipment include: different systematic errors in the testing equipment itself, non-uniform enterprise-specific testing specifications, uneven skill levels of operators, etc. Regardless of
the error type, the ultimate outcome is that test results are far from the actual value and
the actual energy efficiency level of the tested air conditioner cannot be determined. The
direct result of different measurements between firms and national quality inspection
agencies is that the self-reported enterprise testing result and the self-labeled product
energy efficiency parameters deviate from the actual product quality index, and therefore
the energy efficiency label information is inconsistent with actual rating of the product.

I.2.1.4.2 Necessity Analysis


Despite significant improvements in the overall testing level and investment in testing
facilities, the air conditioning testing facilities of energy efficiency testing laboratories
reveal that there are still problems such as inadequate testing facilities in some laboratories, insufficient testing expertise in personnel, measurement deviation of testing equipment and the poor repeatability of testing data. These problems should be addressed by
taking urgent measures to promote the upgrading and transformation of testing facilities
through systematic round robin testing that will help reduce or eliminate measurement
deviations and thereby ensure the accuracy and authority of the energy efficiency labeling
information.
I.2.1.5 Domestic and International Energy Efficiency Standards and Labeling of
Room Air Conditioners
Many countries have developed energy efficiency standards for room air conditioners,
most of which are mandatory standards, with energy-efficiency labels implemented in
some countries as well. A countrys energy efficiency standards and labeling programs
reflect national and regional methodology for determining energy efficiency indicators
and the technical level of products. Different standards and labeling systems have been
introduced and utilized in different countries and regions. The following paragraphs focus
on the energy efficiency standards and labeling programs for room air conditioners in the
United States, European Union, Japan, Australia and other countries.

I.2.1.5.1 United States

12

The Appliance Labeling Rule (ALR), a mandatory system of energy efficiency labeling
system in U.S., was established by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) in 1980 and implementation followed with cooperation of the Department of Energy (DOE). The voluntary labeling program (Energy Star) was established by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) in 1992 with joint DOE efforts to promote the program beginning
in 1996.
The FTC and DOE are responsible for implementation of the mandatory energyefficiency labeling program (Energy Guide). In order to ensure the compliance of labeling information, the United States established a compliance monitoring mechanism
(CMS) that requires manufacturers or suppliers to test a new product to determine its
energy efficiency level prior to selling them and to submit a certification report to the
DOE. The report includes energy efficiency data of the product and a complete compliance declaration. Once the DOE-approved minimum energy performance standards of
a given product have been met, the EnergyGuide label can be used. By establishing an
energy efficiency data information system and accepting complaints from consumers and
manufacturers, the government can track and publicize the energy efficiency of products.
The final version of the Appliance Labeling Rule (ALR) revised by the U.S. Federal
Trade Commission was approved and came into effect on February 29, 2008. The Rule
requires manufacturers to use the yellow label titled Energy Guide and has clearly stipulated labeling method for the covered products. The specific requirements on label
content for different products are also put forward. The requirements on the label states
that the testing for products in compliance with DOE-issued standards shall be carried out
and that the energy consumption or energy efficiency of covered products shall also be
clearly indicated on the label. For some commercially available products, the label is also
required to clearly indicate a given products energy efficiency range (i.e., energy efficiency comparison range). The label is also required to clearly indicate the annual normal
operating costs (which can be calculated by manufacturers based on recommendations
provided by DOE).
The U.S. Energy Star label is a voluntary label which is awarded to efficient products
with power consumption below the minimum standards. In most cases, the efficiency of
the Energy Star product is higher than that stipulated by the minimum energy performance standards by 13% to 20%. In addition, the Energy Star label can also regulate the
power consumption of electrical appliance under standby mode. In April 1993, President
Bill Clinton signed a presidential order requiring all federal agencies to choose Energy
Star labeled products in government procurement, which has contributed greatly to the
labels success. The label has been applied to almost all of the energy-consuming products and has become one of the key criterions for consumers when purchasing energyconsuming products. It has also been introduced in Canada, Japan, the European Union,
Australia and other countries and has become one of the internationally recognized labeling programs amongst participating countries.

13

The U.S. energy efficiency testing standard for room air conditioner is based on the ISO
5151 Standard, and the energy efficiency performance evaluation indicator uses the
SEER (Seasonal Energy Efficiency Ratio) proposed by DOE. The definition of the indicator is completely different from that of the EER, and the currently required minimum
SEER is 13 (calculations show that this is similar to Grade 2 of China Energy Efficiency
Standards for Air Conditioner, under which the EER is 3.0).

I.2.1.5.2 European Union


The European Union enacted a unified energy efficiency labeling regulation (92/75/EEC)
in September 1992, requiring manufacturers to label their products with energy efficiency
rating, annual energy consumption and other information so that consumers and users can
compare the energy performance of products amongst different brands. The energy label
consists of an energy efficiency rating, main performance indicators, and model and
product specifications. The energy label for air conditioners has been in effect since January 1, 2003.
Many EU countries formulated their own performance standards for room air conditioners in the 1970s, but the standards were unified with the establishment of the European
Union. The basic equivalent of the performance standard for room air conditioner is the
ISO5151 Standards for Test and Determination of Free Blast-Type Air Conditioners and
Heat Pump. The corresponding energy efficiency testing standards is established on the
basis of the ISO5151 Standard, with the energy efficiency performance evaluation indicator adopting the EER (Energy Efficiency Ratio). Currently, the highest rating of the energy label is A with an EER of 3.2 (equivalent to Grade 1 of China Energy Efficiency
Standards on Room Air Conditioner with a EER of 3.2). The energy label is comprised of
seven grades with the EER decreasing by 0.2 with each grade.

I.2.1.5.3 Japan
In 1998, the Japanese government made substantial amendments to the Energy Conservation Act, including the introduction of the Top Runner Program to curb the increase of
energy consumption in civil and transportation sectors. It is different from the mandatory
Minimum Energy Performance Standards (MEPS) adopted by most countries. The energy efficiency standard set by this program is the average performance standard amongst
products of the same type rather than the MEPS. This implies that manufacturers can
manufacture products below the standard, provided that the manufacturers also manufacture other products with higher energy efficiency to ensure that the average performance
of similar products is above the mandatory standard. Currently, the Top Runner Program
is implemented by the Energy Saving Center.
The JIS C9612 Room Air Conditioner is a standard integrating performance and safety,
in which the performance testing requirements and test methods are developed by adopting the ISO 5151 Standard equivalent. The JRA 4046 Calculation Basis for Seasonal

14

Electricity Consumption of Room Air Conditioner is the standard for energy efficiency
testing and evaluation of air conditioners, which is applicable to the calculation of seasonal energy consumption of air-cooled air conditioners. The energy efficiency performance evaluation indicator uses the APF (Annual Performance Factor), with a current
APF value of 4.0.

I.2.1.5.4 Australia
The energy efficiency labeling in Australia adopts the management system of test report
+ product approval and registration + energy efficiency labeling + evaluation and necessary punitive measures, which is also manufacturer-based certification. In 1999, Australia implemented a nationally unified energy efficiency labeling system, with air conditioner included in the mandatory energy efficiency labeling program. Commercially available
products and products on the energy efficiency control list in Australia are required to
adopt the energy efficiency label, with some products also required to fulfill the increasingly strict MEPS requirements.
The performance standard for air conditioners of Australia is based on the AS/NZS 3823
series of standards. The standard AS/NZS 3823.1.1 stipulates the test method for room air
conditioners, equivalent to ISO 5151, with an additional supplement in AS/NZS 3823.2
that specifies the energy efficiency labeling requirements for the air conditioners under
65kW, and the MEPS value (i.e., EER) of the products.

I.2.1.5.5 Hong Kong, China


To help consumers select more energy-efficient products, the Electrical and Mechanical
Services Department (EMSD) carried out the voluntary Energy Efficiency Labeling
Scheme (EELS) for household appliances, office equipment and automobiles. The
scheme aims to help consumers make the right purchase decision by providing them with
information on energy consumption and efficiency levels of different products. In 2008,
the Hong Kong government further passed the Energy Efficiency (Labeling of Products)
Bill to promote a mandatory EELS.
Under the mandatory EELS, energy-using products provided in Hong Kong must be
marked with an energy efficiency label informing consumers of the energy efficiency
level of related products. The first group of energy-using products consists of air conditioners, refrigeration equipment and compact fluorescent lamps and was implemented in
the first phase of the scheme implementation on May 9, 2008.
The Hong Kong performance standard for air conditioners directly adopts the ISO 5151
standard and uses EER as the energy efficiency performance evaluation indicator. Currently, the energy labeling is comprised of five grades, with the highest being Grade 1
with EER value of 3.04 (for split type), followed by EER of 2.72 for Grade 2 and 2.46 for
Grade 3.

15

I.2.1.5.6 China
The measurement indicators in GB12021.3-2004 Energy Efficiency Limit Value and
Rating for Room Air Conditioner, the current energy efficiency standard of room air
conditioners, are only for the cooling performance of air conditioners using EER. The
energy efficiency rating of air conditioners is shown in Table 1:
Table 1 Energy Efficiency Ratings in Current Room Air Conditioner Energy Efficiency Standard

Type

Rated Cooling Capacity (CC) W

2.30

2.50

2.70

2.9

3.1

CC4500

2.60

2.80

3.00

3.2

3.4

4500CC7100

2.50

2.70

2.90

3.1

3.3

7100CC14000

2.40

2.60

2.80

3.0

3.2

Integrated type

Split type

Energy Efficiency Level

Analysis of energy efficiency standard statistics shows that most foreign energy efficiency standards are proactive, meaning that the implementation is usually 3 to 5 years after
the release so as to provide manufacturers with enough lead time to adapt. The 2009 revision of Chinas Energy Efficiency Standard of Room Air Conditioner is also proactive. In
the new version, the energy efficiency limit value is equal to Grade 2 of the original version. The details are shown in Table 2.
Table 2 Air Conditioner Energy Efficiency Limit Values Implemented in 2009

Type

Rated Cooling Capacity (CC) W

Integrated Type

Split Type

Energy Efficiency Ratio (EER) W/W


2.90

CC4500

3.20

4500CC7100

3.10

7100CC14000

3.00

Since the energy efficiency labeling system is introduced in detail in section I.1, it is not
described again here.

I.2.1.5.7 Analysis of Policy Need


On one hand, air conditioner is often one of the first products to be covered by an energy
efficiency labeling system in many countries, including China. Effective implementation
of the energy efficiency label for air conditioners will promote the development and improvement of the energy efficiency labeling system throughout China. Achievement of
this goal depends on effective testing of air conditioner energy efficiency and it is there-

16

fore necessary to carry out round robin testing and evaluation of energy efficiency testing
data for room air conditioners.
Because the room air conditioner energy efficiency standards of above mentioned countries and regions are all set in accordance with the technical requirements, test conditions
and test methods specified in the international standard ISO 5151, the comparability of
product performance is high. However, as a result of different local and national conditions amongst countries and regions, differences of performance indicators and other aspects of the standards exists. Consequently, the information on the energy efficiency label
varies. In order to eliminate trade barriers as international trade in the air conditioning
industry expands rapidly, coordination and mutual recognition of international standards
and labeling has become a common trend. The improvement and emphasis on testing capability of Chinas energy efficiency testing laboratories will provide technical support
and ensure successful coordination and mutual recognition of international standards and
labeling.

I.2.2 Project Feasibility


All parties related to round robin testing of room air conditioner have generally expressed
their support for the activity and previous practical experiences in this area serves as a
useful reference, which increases the feasibility of the project.
I.2.2.1 Accumulation of Early Practical Experience
China has precedents in round robin testing of air conditioner products, including in 2006
when the China Consumers Association organized the comparative testing for the credibility of energy efficiency labeling information of air conditioners. Products used for testing covered 12 models of split-type room air conditioners produced by 12 manufacturers.
The accumulation of such early practical experience provides a good reference point for
carrying out the round robin testing of room air conditioners energy efficiency levels.
I.3 PROJECT SIGNIFICANCE
The implementation of CEELS has led to significant improvement in energy efficiency of
main energy-consuming products with important economic and social benefits. According to the Energy Conservation Law and the Administration Regulation on Energy
Efficiency Labeling, the products covered by CEELS, made and/or sold in China are
required to carry out energy efficiency performance testing. In this case, the accuracy and
reliability of the testing results can directly influence the creditability of the information
on the label and the authority and gravity of the energy efficiency label.
At present, the technical level of the laboratories conducting energy efficiency testing in
China is remarkably lower than some developed countries, and the testing capacity and
the accuracy of the testing results are in need of improvement. Room air conditioner is
the earliest product for which the CEEL was implemented and has appropriate characte17

ristics such as mature industry, market, and technologies; wide range of use with fastgrowing production; energy-intensive use and high energy savings potential; not unified
testing technologies with variations in testing equipment, conditions, and capabilities of
laboratories; and does not have an mutually recognized energy efficiency standard and
label.
The effective implementation of room air conditioner energy efficiency label will have a
tremendous impact on leading the development and improvement of the entire CEELS.
By conducting round robin energy efficiency testing amongst foreign, national, local and
manufacturers laboratories in China, this project aims to analyze and evaluate the
present situation of Chinese laboratories energy efficiency testing using statistical analysis of testing results. Effort to identify and address existing problems impacting the further development of Chinese labs can then be undertaken. The general goals of this
project is ensure the accuracy, reliability, consistency of the energy label information,
strengthen the social credibility and capacity of international mutual recognition, and ensure the effectiveness of implementing the China Energy Efficiency Label System.
I.4

DEVELOPING THE IMPLEMENTATION SCHEME FOR ROUND ROBIN TESTING

I.4.1 Development Process for the Implementation Scheme


I.4.1.1 Basic Information Collection and Preliminary Visits to Identify Target
Products for Testing and Testing Facilities
Collect information through various channels including networks, telephone, Email, etc.
On May 18th, 2009, experts from the EEL Center of CNIS visited Guangzhou
Vkan Certification & Testing Institute. Its history, testing capabilities, and current
development status were reviewed, and feedback on the proposed project implementation scheme was received during discussions.
The split-type and fixed-speed room air conditioner is determined as the target
product. Testing institutes are chosen and divided as 1 dominant lab and 5 reference labs. The testing methods are the air-enthalpy method and calorimeter method. The specific details are as follows:
Calorimeter Method:
Guangzhou Vkan Certification & Testing Institute, China Household Electric Appliance Research Institute, Gree Electric Appliances Inc. of Zhuhai, Intertek Consumers Goods, Sichuan Province Inspection Test Bureau of Electronic Produces/China Ceprei(Sichuan) Laboratory.
Air-enthalpy Method:
China Household Electric Appliance Research Institute, Gree Electric Appliances,
Inc. of Zhuhai, Intertek Consumers Goods, Jiangsu Supervision and Inspection
Institute for Products Quality.

18

I.4.1.2 Analysis, Research and Drafting of the Implementation Scheme


The scheme was formulated following the relevant national regulations.
I.4.1.3 Experts Discussion
The project kick-off meeting was held on the 14th of August 2009 in Rongcheng city in
Shandong province. The draft round robin testing scheme was thoroughly discussed and
suggestions recorded in order ensure a scientific, stringent, rational, and operable implementation scheme, improve guidance on the project efforts and to ensure the projects
success.
I.4.1.4 Formulation of Final Implementation Scheme
The draft plan was further revised and finalized based on discussion with experts.

I.4.2 Content of Implementation Scheme


I.4.2.1 Sample Selection
Unlike the sample selection for general product quality testing, round robin testing of
products energy performance needs products that have steady and reliable performance
to minimize the testing error caused by the product itself. In considering the importance
of sample performance stability for round robin testing, the samples selected from the
product line of manufacture were pre-screened. The specified scheme was as follows:
According to the requirements of the round robin testing and the market sale situation of the room air-conditioners, China National Institute of Standardization
(CNIS) appointed a manufacturer to select 4 sets of samples of the split and fixedspeed types;
Sample customization time limit was set at two months;
The manufacturer should calibrate parameter points to be measured in the samples, which should be confirmed by CNIS and dominant lab so that the dominant
lab can determine the samples testing reference data;
The manufacturer should propose protective measures to reduce damage to the
samples during the packing, unpacking and transportation process;
The manufacturer is in charge of filling in the Sample Description Sheet, and
delivering the samples to the dominant lab with the Sample Transfer Record
filled out on both sides.

19

Figure 2 Flow Chart of Sample Selection Process

1
Appoint manufactures to choose the
samples (4 sets)

2
Sample energy efficiency performance
stability Testing

3
Calibrate parameter points in the sample
to be measured

4
Be Delivered to the dominant Lab

I.4.2.2 Energy Efficiency Testing

I.4.2.2.1 Testing Items


I.4.2.2.1.1 Cooling Performance
Number
Inspection item

Pursuant standards and provisions

Cooling capacity

GB/T17758-1999 GB/T 7725-2004

Cooling consumption power

GB/T17758-1999 GB/T 7725-2004

Energy efficiency ratio (EER)

GB 12021.3-2004

I.4.2.2.1.2 Heating Performance


Number
Inspection item

Pursuant standards and provisions

Heating capacity

GB/T17758-1999 GB/T 7725-2004

Heating consumption power

GB/T17758-1999 GB/T 7725-2004

Energy efficiency ratio(COP)

GB 12021.3-2004

I.4.2.2.2 Basis for Determination

GB/T 7725-2004 Room Air-Conditioner;


GB 12021.3-2004 The Minimum Allowable Values of the Energy Efficiency and
Energy Efficiency Grade for Room Air-Conditioner;

20

CEL-002-2004 Energy Efficiency Labeling Implementation Rules for AirConditioners.

I.4.2.2.3 Testing Process


Due to special laboratory circumstances and to effectively reflect the testing capacity of
Chinese labs, two different testing methods are selected: the enthalpy testing method and
the calorimeter testing method. The number of labs selected for the enthalpy testing method and the calorimeter testing method is 4 and 5, respectively. The details of the testing
process are as follows:
The dominant lab is in charge of energy efficiency performance testing of all the
samples to get the reference data including the installation conditions, environmental factors, equipments factors etc., and then fill out the Round Robin Testing Process Record, and present the Round Robin Testing Report.
After completing the round robin testing, the dominant lab is responsible for delivering all the samples to other reference labs for testing in the circular path (See
Figure 3);
After completing the round robin testing, the dominant lab is responsible for delivering and sending the Round Robin Testing Process Record, Round Robin
Testing Report, etc. to CNIS;
All the reference labs should carry out energy efficiency testing for all conditions
recorded in the Round Robin Testing Process Record presented by the dominant lab, fill in the Sample Transfer Record, and present its Round Robin Testing Process Record and Round Robin Testing Report;
After completing the round robin testing, all the reference labs are responsible for
delivering and sending samples and the following documents to CNIS within 5
days after testing completion: Sample Description Sheet (hard and electronic
copies), Sample Transfer Record, Round Robin Testing Process Record and
Round Robin Testing Report, certificate copies of verification officers involved
in the round robin testing, etc.;
CNIS is in charge of statistics and analysis of all reference data provided by the
dominant lab and testing results provided by all reference labs, and then the final
round robin testing report will be finalized.

21

Figure 3 Flow Path of Testing Process


Data collection

CNIS

Samples recovery

Samples Selection4 sets


Data collection
Dominant Lab

Reference
Lab

samples

Reference
Lab

samples

Reference
Lab

samples

Reference
Lab

I.4.2.3 Other Considerations

I.4.2.3.1 Installation Requirements for Samples

The installation of all the samples should be conducted following Figure 4 with
the given power supply conditions: 220V1%, 50Hz1%. Half of the outdoor airconditioner connection pipe should be placed outdoor, and the rest of the sample
installation should follow regulations in GB/T7725-2004;
Figure 4 Side View (Upper Figure) and Top View (Lower Figure) of Sample Installation

22

After the sample is installed, evacuation treatment should be adopted to evacuate


air in the connection pipe and heat interchanger. Afterwards, the vacuum pressure
should remain below 0.3kPa for 30min, and the pressure recovery should not exceed 0.05kPa;
After vacuum treatment, charge 850g5g R22 refrigerant for sample 1, 2, and 3,
and 1700g5g R410A refrigerant for sample 4;
After the enthalpy difference method is applied for testing, the length of the connection air duct in the sample air outlet should not be longer than 0.5 m, and the
shape of the air duct should not affect the sample air supply amount;
The indoor part of the sample should be put horizontally and the condensed water
should be removed smoothly;
Preprocessing in any form is prohibited; the inner filter screen and the air outlet
grille cannot be unpacked before testing.
After completing the cooling performance testing, the samples do not need to be
packed or unpacked again as the heating performance testing should be conducted
immediately after.
All reference labs should follow the specific installation conditions in the Round
Robin Testing Process Record presented by the dominant lab to guarantee the
comparability of the testing data.

I.4.2.3.2 Testing Environment Requirements

After the samples have been ran with the power on, adjust the lab environments
working conditions to meet the standards regulated requirements and then record
testing environment data in the Round Robin Testing Process Record;
All reference labs should conduct energy efficiency testing under working environment conditions presented in the Round Robin Testing Process Record by
the dominant lab;
If the operating parameters of samples in the reference labs are not consistent with
working environment conditions presented by the dominant lab, the labs should
make other necessary adjustments such as confirming samples cooling medium
charging amount, cooling medium leakage, pipeline heat insulation, installation
position and the labs air sampling devices, air duct in the air outlet, and static
pressure, etc.;

23

All the reference labs should follow the specific testing environmental conditions
in the Round Robin Testing Process Record presented by the dominant lab to
guarantee the comparability of the testing data.

I.4.2.3.3 Stipulations on Transferring Samples


The transfer of samples should be jointly completed by CNIS and all designated testing
labs, including checking the completeness of the package, inspection of samples external
appearance, and filling in the Sample Transfer Record etc. The transfer record should
be copied for CNIS and both sides of the labs.

I.4.2.3.4 Stipulations on Transporting Samples


The dominant lab should deliver the samples to the reference labs on the day when the
testing is completed. The samples should be personally carried and any other delivery
way is prohibited.

I.4.2.3.5 Considerations for the Delivery and Testing Processes

In case of sample failure during testing or the sample delivery process, the lab observing failure should not dispose of it independently but should report to CNIS
immediately, and allow CNIS to deal with it according to the specific circumstances;
The dominant lab and all the reference labs should strictly follow the testing plan
and complete the task on time. In case of any delay due to unexpected circumstances, the lab should submit an immediate application to CNIS;
When the verification equipment in labs breaks down or is damaged during testing, cause of the malfunction and the resolution should be recorded and then
CNIS informed;
CNIS may appoint related personnel to check the testing status of the labs at any
time during the testing period to ensure the truthfulness and reliability of the
round robin testing.

I.4.2.3.6 Round Robin Testing Report and Process Record Requirements


The Round Robin Testing Process Record should include the round robin testing summary, testing component uncertainty parameters, lab cooling (heating) capacity calculation formula, and description about testing deviation requirements. The Round Robin
Testing Report should include testing results, data sheets, data curve of the entire testing
process, and analysis of uncertainty of testing results.

I.4.2.3.7 Confidentiality Provisions

24

All the related personnel and members of experts group in the labs should keep testing
results and reports confidential without exchanging data or disclosing any information
about the testing results to the outside so as to guarantee fairness and objectivity of the
round robin testing.
I.4.2.4 Main Participants and Respective Project Responsibilities
Responsible Unit: CNIS
Specified responsibilities are as follows:
Identify testing items;
Determine testing labs, including dominant lab and reference labs;
Develop round robin testing implementation schemes and other documents;
Address major disputes and controversies;
Supervise the objectivity and fairness of the entire testing process;
Collect and compile testing data, round robin testing process record, round robin
testing report, etc.
Sample Provider
Specified responsibilities are as follows:
Provide testing samples and calibrate samples energy efficiency performance
measurement parameters to facilitate the dominant lab in getting reference data
for testing, and harmonize the state of the samples to be tested;
Propose protective measures to prevent damage to samples during the sample
packing, unpacking and transport process;
Responsible for delivering the samples to the dominant lab.
Testing Labs
Dominant lab
Specified responsibilities are as follows:
Provide accurate reference data, and provide round robin testing process record
and round robin testing report;
Examine and verify various conditions for testing, including installation conditions, testing environment conditions, etc. so that all the reference labs can implement uniformly;
Responsible for delivering samples to reference lab;
Abide by and execute confidentiality provisions.
Reference labs
Specified responsibilities are as follows:
Complete energy efficiency testing following requirements in the round robin
testing implementation scheme;
Cooperate and collaborate with the dominant lab for testing according to the
schedule;

25

Provide testing results to CNIS on time;


Abide by the confidentiality provisions.
Specified reference labs are:
International level lab;
National level lab;
Local lab;
Enterprise lab.
I.4.2.5 Main Participants

WANG Ruohong

Senior Engineer/Director, Male


Division of Resource & Environment Standardization, CNIS

CHENG Jianhong
Cao Ning

Senior Engineer, Male


Division of Resource & Environment Standardization, CNIS
Engineer, Male
Division of Resource & Environment Standardization, CNIS

Xia Yujuan

Engineer, Female
Division of Resource & Environment Standardization, CNIS

Peng Yanyan

Engineer, Female
Division of Resource & Environment Standardization, CNIS

ZHANG Xin

Engineer, Male
Division of Resource & Environment Standardization, CNIS

WANG Geng

Engineer, Male
Division of Resource & Environment Standardization, CNIS

BAO Wei

Engineer, Male
Division of Resource & Environment Standardization, CNIS

WEI Bo

Engineer, Male
Division of Resource & Environment Standardization, CNIS

WU Shangjie

Senior Engineer, Male


China Household Electric Appliance Research Institute

26

DAI Shilong

Senior Engineer, Male


Heifei General Machinery Research Institute

I.5

PROJECT ORGANIZATION AND EXECUTION

I.5.1 Sample Customization


1. Number: 4 sample sets, 3 of which are from leading domestic air conditioner manufacturers and 1 of which is an international round robin testing sample from Australia.
2. Product sample type: split type; fixed-speed;
Specific details of the 3 Chinese product samples are as follows:
Brand: Gree Electric Appliances, Inc. of Zhuhai
Model: KFR-35GW/K(35556)B1-N5
Cooling capacity: 3520 W
Heating capacity: 4000W
Input power: 1266 W (cooling)/1190 W (heating)
Voltage: 220 V
Frequency of power unit: 50 Hz
Energy efficiency ratio (COP): 2.78
Energy efficiency level: 5
Size of the interior/exterior units (cm): 845 x 275 x 180848 x 540 x 320
Specified details of the sample from Australia are as follows:
Brand: Gree Electric Appliances, Inc. of Zhuhai
Model: GWHN18B5NK3NA (KFR-50)
Cooling capacity: 5300W
Heating capacity: 6060W
Input power: 1730 W (cooling)/1770 W (heating)
Energy efficiency ratio (COP): 3.06
Energy efficiency level: 3
Voltage: 230 V
Frequency of power unit: 50 Hz
Size of the interior/exterior units (cm): 1020 x 310 x 228848 x 592 x 320
3. Production method: Manufactured by normal production line, with proven stability in
energy efficiency performance.

I.5.2 Sample Delivery and Pre-Testing Preparation Work


The air conditioner manufacturer presented performance stability report, calibrated parameter points to be measured in the samples, which was confirmed by CNIS and the dominant lab. The manufacturer filled in the Sample Description Sheet and then delivered
the samples to the dominant lab.
27

I.5.3 Project Kick-Off Meeting


On August 14th, 2009, the project kick-off meeting was held in Rongcheng city in Shandong province to officially launch project activities. International experience for round
robin testing was introduced and the project implementation scheme was extensively discussed by the participating experts and feedback was collected. The representatives were
from National Development and Reform Commission (NDRC), Energy Foundation (EF),
the Collaborative Labeling and Appliance Standards Program (CLASP, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (LNBL), CNIS, Guangzhou Vkan Certification & Testing Institute, China Household Electric Appliance Research Institute, Sichuan Province Inspection Test Bureau of Electronic Produces/China Ceprei (Sichuan) Laboratory, Intertek
Consumers Goods, and Zhuhai Gree Electric Appliances Inc., Administration of Quality
and Technology Supervision, and Supervision and Inspection Institute for Products Quality in Shandong, Jiangsu, Sichuan, and Shanghai attended the meeting.

I.5.4 Conducting the Energy Efficiency Round Robin Testing


The round robin testing timeline was as follows:
Duration
2009.10-2009.11.10
2009.11.11-2009.11.20
2009.11.22-2009.12.3
2009.12.6-2009.12.13
2009.12.16-2009.12.27
2009.12.31-2010.1.12

Responsible institute
Guangzhou Vkan Certification & Testing Institute
Intertek Consumers Goods
Gree Electric Appliances, Inc. of Zhuhai
Jiangsu Supervision and Inspection Institute for Products Quality
China Household Electric Appliance Research Institute
Sichuan Province Inspection Test Bureau of Electronic
Produces/China Ceprei (Sichuan) Laboratory

Address
Guangdong
Guangdong
Guangdong
Jiangsu
Beijing
Sichuan

I.5.5 Participation of International Expert


An international expert, Andr Pierrot, participated in this RRT through visits to Guangzhou Vkan Certification & Testing Institute, Intertek Consumers Goods, and China
Household Electric Appliance Research Institute. CNIS helped make arrangements for
the visit by communicating with test laboratories, setting visit schedules, and coordinating personnel to accompany the expert on his visit.
I.6 RRT RESULTS AND ANALYSIS
CNIS is in charge of the statistics, analysis and evaluation of the reference data given by
the dominant laboratory and testing data given by participant laboratories.

28

I.6.1 Data Collection, Analysis and Result Evaluation Method


The consistency evaluation of energy efficiency indicators uses the robust statistical methods (Z ratio fraction)9. Robust statistical methods are not unduly affected by outliers or
other small departures from model assumptions. In traditional statistical methods, the
mean of a group data are susceptible to outliers, and the situation does not apply for robust statistical method, in which the mean is substituted by median, and standard deviation is substituted by Norm IQR (inter-quartile range).
I.6.1.1 Data Collection and Statistical Analysis
The participating laboratories should test the specified parameters of each sample under
defined conditions, and submit the testing results to CNIS.
After all the participant laboratories have finished testing, CNIS adopts robust statistical
methods to analyze the test results data in the form of overall statistics. The related statistics are as follows:
Number of results: The number of effective results reported by participant laboratories following the implementation scheme of round robin testing.
Median: A median is described as the numeric value separating the higher half and
the lower half of all the observations. The median of a finite list of numbers can be
found by sorting all the observations from the lowest value to highest value and determining the middle one.
Inter-quartile range (IQR): The difference of upper quartile and lower quartile. A
larger IQR value indicates greater dispersion of observations. Conversely, lower IQR
value represents a smaller dispersion coefficient of observations. Upper quartile (Q3)
refers to the value smaller than a quarter of all the observations. Lower quartile value
(Q1) refers to the value larger than a quarter of all the observations.
Norm Inter-quartile range (NIQR): It is obtained by multiplying IQR with the coefficient 0.7413, and is equivalent to standard deviation.
Robust coefficient of variation (Robust CV): It is obtained by dividing NIQR with the
median, and is equivalent to the classic coefficient of variation (i.e., the result of standard deviation divided by mean).
Outlier: Data that is considered to be significantly different from others through statistical analysis. In this round robin testing, the Z ratio fraction is calculated by robust
statistical methods. When the absolute value of Z ratio fraction is larger than or equal

Note that this statistical method is primarily used for normalization exercises. More in-depth analysis of
the testing data and results are presented in section II.

29

to 3, the corresponding data is considered to be an outlier. The calculation formula for


Z ratio fraction is as follows:

Where, xi is measured value, and M is median.


Maximum, minimum: The maximum and minimum values of a group of data.
Range: The difference between maximum and minimum values of a group of data.
I.6.1.2 Evaluation of Laboratory Test Results
The Z values of each laboratories can be calculated from the overall statistics (median
and NIQR).
In this round robin testing, the following criteria are employed to evaluate the testing results.
Z

2, satisfactory result

2 Z 3 , problematic result
Z 3, outlier(unsatisfactory result).

I.6.2

Evaluation and Analysis of Test Results

In this round robin testing, there were originally 4 customized samples. But sample 2 was
damaged on its way to China Household Electric Appliances Research Institute, resulting
in the final number of sample utilized being only 3. There were 6 parameters tested for
each sample, including cooling capacity, cooling input power, EER, heat capacity, heating input power, and COP. The testing method used was the calorimeter method, the air
enthalpy method or both methods. A total of 6 laboratories participated, which all tested
the 6 parameters for each of the 3 samples and submitted testing results as shown in Table 3. For each item of each sample, there were a total of 6 results.
It should be noted that two kind of testing methods were used in this round robin testing.
Except for Jiangsu Supervision and Inspection Institute for Products Quality, the other 5
laboratories all have calorimeter testing capabilities. For the 5 other laboratories, the calorimeter test method is preferred in robust statistical analysis.

30

Table 3 Catalog of Reported Data by Participating Laboratories


Sample
No.
Testing
method

1
calorimeter

2
enthalpy

Mode

CVC

Intertek

Gree

JSIIPQ
CHEARI

SPITBEP

calorimeter

3
enthalpy

calorimeter

4
enthalpy

calorimeter

enthalpy

Note: CVC refers to Guangzhou Vkan Certification & Testing Institute; Intertek refers to Intertek ConsumersGoods; Gree refers to Gree Electric Appliances Inc. of Zhuhai; JSIIPQ refers to Jiangsu Supervision and
Inspection Institute for Products Quality; CHEARI refers to China Household Electric Appliance Research
Institute; SPITBEP refers to Sichuan Province Inspection Test Bureau of Electronic Produces/China Ceprei
(Sichuan) Laboratory; C refers to cooling, and H refers to Heating.

I.6.2.1 Statistical Results


All the testing data were analyzed using statistical methods, and the details are shown in
Table 4 and Table 5.
Statistical analysis results of cooling capacity data: Among the 6 testing results, there are
0, 0, and 1 unsatisfactory result for sample 1, 3, and 4, respectively, corresponding to
percentage proportions of 0%, 0%, and 16.67%.
Statistical analysis results of cooling input power data: Among the 6 testing results, there
are 1, 1, and 1 unsatisfactory result for sample 1, 3, and 4, respectively, corresponding to
percentage proportions of 16.67%, 16.67%, and 16.67%.
Statistical analysis results of EER data: Among the 6 testing results, there are 0, 1, and 0
unsatisfactory results for sample 1, 3, and 4, respectively, corresponding to percentage
proportions of 0%, 16.67%, and 0%.
Statistical analysis results of heating capacity data: Among the 6 testing results, there are
0, 0, and 0 unsatisfactory results for sample 1, 3, and 4, respectively, corresponding to
percentage proportions of 0%, 0%, and 0%.

31

Statistical analysis results of heating input power data: Among the 6 testing results, there
are 0, 2, and 0 unsatisfactory results for sample 1, 3, and 4, respectively, corresponding to
percentage proportions of 0%, 33.33%, and 0%.
Statistical analysis results of COP data: Among the 6 testing results, there are 0, 0, and 0
unsatisfactory results for sample 1, 3, and 4, respectively, corresponding to percentage
proportions of 0%, 0%, and 0%.
I.6.2.2 Analysis and Discussion of Statistical Results

I.6.2.2.1 By Test Item


The 18 testing data points of 6 laboratories and 3 samples corresponding to each test item
is treated as a whole, among which the percentages of satisfactory, problematic, and unsatisfactory results (outliers) are calculated as shown in Table 6.
The highest percentages of satisfactory results correspond to heating capacity and COP at
100%, followed by 89% for cooling capacity and EER. The percentages corresponding to
cooling input power and heating input power is the lowest at 78%. Therefore, the laboratories should strengthen their capacities in input power testing.

I.6.2.2.2 By Laboratory
The 18 testing data points of 3 samples and 6 testing items corresponding to each laboratory is treated as a whole, among which the percentages of satisfactory, problematic, and
unsatisfactory results (outliers) are calculated for each laboratory.
All the testing results of laboratory 1 are satisfactory. There are 2 unsatisfactory results
for laboratory 2; 3 problematic results for laboratory 3; 1 problematic result and 1 unsatisfactory result for laboratory 4; 1 problematic result and 1 unsatisfactory result for laboratory 5, and 1 unsatisfactory results for laboratory 6. Based on this, the percentages of
satisfactory, problematic, and unsatisfactory results (outliers) for each laboratory are calculated as shown in Table 7.
Laboratory 1 has the highest percentage of satisfactory results at 100%, while laboratory
3 has the lowest percentage at 83.33%. Laboratory 2 has the highest percentage of unsatisfactory results at 11.11%.
The above results show that most laboratories had problematic or unsatisfactory result,
indicating that there were testing error among them, and the consistency of testing data
need to be further improved. The errors may be due to differences in the operational status of equipment or skills of operators. It is noteworthy that the percentages of satisfactory results for laboratories 2 and 3 are the lowest. Thus they should strengthen the verifica-

32

tion and improvement of laboratory quality control measures, equipment operation status,
and operating skills and capabilities of personnel.

33

Table 4 Statistical Results for Test Data


Cooling capacity Cooling input power
Sample No. Lab No.
Z
Evaluation
Z
Evaluation

EER

Heating

Heating input power

COP

Evaluation

Evaluation

Evaluation

Evaluation

1#

1
2
3
4
5
6

0.38
1.00
1.94
-0.05
-0.55
-0.69

S
S
S
S
S
S

-0.67
11.30
1.01
-1.01
-0.17
0.17

S
U
S
S
S
S

1.01
-1.46
2.59
0.56
-0.34
-0.56

S
S
P
S
S
S

1.21
-1.02
-0.26
0.19
0.60
-1.75

S
S
S
S
S
S

-0.14
-0.41
2.12
-0.80
1.29
0.14

S
S
P
S
S
S

1.03
-0.05
-0.83
0.83
0.05
-0.74

S
S
S
S
S
S

3#

1
2
3
4
5
6

0.86
0.45
2.45
-0.38
-0.45
-1.02

S
S
P
S
S
S

-0.35
3.83
-1.22
0.35
0.35
0.52

S
U
S
S
S
S

1.54
-0.26
3.59
0.00
0.00
-0.51

S
S
U
S
S
S

1.99
-0.74
0.33
0.62
-0.54
-0.33

S
S
S
S
S
S

0.12
0.61
-0.10
-4.05
5.52
-0.12

S
S
S
U
U
S

1.09
-0.55
0.23
0.63
-0.78
-0.23

S
S
S
S
S
S

4#

1
2
3
4
5
6

-0.48
0.56
-0.56
1.55
-0.64
-4.08

S
S
S
S
S
U

-0.42
-0.24
-2.18
1.15
2.85
-0.30

S
S
P
S
P
S

-0.36
0.07
0.22
-0.07
-1.52
-1.81

S
S
S
S
S
S

0.20
-0.59
-0.20
1.20
1.33
-0.72

S
S
S
S
S
S

-1.73
1.97
0.07
-2.22
0.00
0.00

S
S
S
P
S
S

0.80
-1.15
-0.46
1.72
0.46
-0.69

S
S
S
S
S
S

Where S refers to satisfactory, P refers to problematic, and U refers to unsatisfactory.

34

Table 5 Statistical Results of Test Data in Percentages


1#
Satisfacto- Problemat- Unsatisfactory
ic
ry
Testing item

Satisfactory

3#
Problematic

Unsatisfactory

Satisfactory

4#
Problematic

Unsatisfactory

P (%

P%

P%

P (%

P%

P%

P (%

P%

P%

Cooling capacity
Cooling input
power
EER

100

83.33

16.67

83.33

16.67

83.33

16.67

83.33

16.67

66.67

16.67

16.67

83.33

16.67

83.33

16.67

100

Heating capacity
Heating input
power
COP

100

100

100

83.33

16.67

66.67

33.333

83.33

16.67

100

100

100

Where N refers to number, and P refers to percentage.

Table 6 Distribution of Test Result Types by Test Item


Sample No.

Satisfactory(%)

Problematic(%)

Unsatisfactory(%)

Cooling capacity

88.89

5.56

5.56

Cooling input power

77.78

11.11

11.11

EER

88.89

5.56

5.56

Heating capacity

100.00

0.00

0.00

Heating input power

77.78

11.11

11.11

COP

100.00

0.00

0.00

35

Table 7 Distribution of Test Result Types by Laboratory


Lab No.

Satisfactory(%)

Problematic(%)

Unsatisfactory(%)

100.00

0.00

0.00

88.89

0.00

11.11

83.33

16.67

0.00

88.89

5.56

5.56

88.89

5.56

5.56

94.44

0.00

5.56

I.6.3 Overall Evaluation of Round Robin Testing


I.6.3.1 The RRT Process
On one hand, under CNISs careful organization and the strong support of participant
labs, the RRT was conducted in an orderly manner. Testing results from participant laboratories were submitted on time and CLASPs international expert was briefed on the
whole testing process by appointed staff. Consequently, the RRT was successfully completed and the testing data was collected on time.
There are some aspects that can be improved, such as strengthening the safeguards measures of transporting samples to the test laboratory. The service quality of some transport
companies was not satisfactory and resulted in long delays of samples. The technical capabilities of personnel in some laboratory should also be improved. Some laboratory staff
misinterpreted the RRT implementation scheme while another faced challenges in conducting uncertainties evaluation of test results and needed some guidance and assistance.
Some laboratories had daily testing tasks and could not set aside sufficient time for the
RRT. Additionally, the equipment of some laboratories needs to be better maintained and
updated. Some laboratories lacked calorimeter testing capability, and the equipment of
some laboratories had glitches during the RRT process.
I.6.3.2 RRT Results
As the testing items of this RRT are routine in testing laboratories regular energy efficiency testing, the RRT will reflect the actual level of participant laboratories and verify
the effect of their ongoing quality control measures. From this RRT, it can be seen that
the participating laboratories have established relatively comprehensive quality control
system, and consistent monitoring ability is in place. Some problematic and unsatisfactory results still exist. Therefore, much more emphasis should be placed on enhancing quality monitoring efforts, calibration and upgrading of testing equipment, and improving the
testing skills and capabilities of related personnel.

36

I.6.3.3 RRT Overall Impacts


In this RRT of air conditioners, a relatively complete implementation scheme was developed, which lays a solid foundation for conducting similar RRT among industry laboratories, third-party laboratories and future participation in related international RRT program. The RRT has helped enhanced the communication amongst participant laboratories
and improved the testing capabilities and expertise of laboratory staff. The RRT has also
contributed to identifying problems and the necessary related improvements. The RRT
has helped raise awareness of energy efficiency and RRT activities in related industries
and has actively contributed to expanding the impact of CEELS and its effective implementation.
I.7

PROPOSALS FOR ENHANCING TEST LABORATORY CAPABILITIES AND FACILITIES


1. Given the RRT results, all participating laboratories should further evaluate their
quality control measures, testing equipment conditions, and the skills and capabilities of personnel in order to identify problems and make the necessary corrective
and preventive measures to avoid future testing errors.
2. The energy efficiency testing laboratories should pay more attention to quality
control efforts and continue to effectively monitor management, equipment, staff,
etc.
3. Greater emphasis should be placed on upgrading testing facilities and increasing
financial resources for improving the condition of laboratory equipment.
4. Regularly organize educational activities and training in testing technologies, uncertainty analysis, etc., in order to enhance the technical capacity and expertise of
related personnel.
5. Actively participate in various capacity building and verification activities organized by international organizations, national institutes and provincial and municipal authorities, such as RRT and spot check-testing. Conduct internal assessment
activities such as random inspections, personnel review, equipment testing, repeatability testing, etc. to continuously improve the testing capabilities of laboratories.
6. Actively learn from international best practices through capacity building efforts
with other countries.

37

International Expert Analysis of Round Robin Testing


(Andr Pierrot)
II.1 RESULTS
The following table shows the tests performed during the RRT.
Table 8: Tests Performed During the Round Robin Test

OK

OK

OK

OK

OK

OK

OK

OK

OK

OK

OK

OK

OK

OK

OK

OK

Air enthalpy
Heating

OK

OK

OK

OK

OK

OK

Heating

OK

Calorimeter

Air enthalpy

Calorimeter

OK

OK

Cooling

OK

Cooling

OK

Australian lab

OK

Heating

OK

Cooling

OK

Heating

Calorimeter
OK

OK

Heating

Lab 3

OK

Cooling

OK

Cooling

OK

OK

Heating

Lab 2

OK

Cooling

OK

Heating

Lab 1

Cooling

Calorimeter

Mode

Heating

Method

Lab 4

2
Air enthalpy

1
Air enthalpy

Sample

Cooling

II.

OK

OK

OK

OK

OK

OK

Missing
Results received

Of the 58 tests scheduled (excluding the JRAIA laboratory), only 43 have been performed. Failures or technical problems in some testing facilities and the failure of Sample
2 at the last laboratory explain why 15 tests (in red in the table) have not been performed.
For Laboratory 4, CNIS informed that the tests using the indoor air enthalpy method were
not performed due to the operation conditions of testing equipments. Details about this
failure have not been given. In addition, Laboratory 4 believes that the calorimeter method can fully represent their testing ability.
For Laboratory 1, CNIS informed that the data in heating mode for calorimeter method is
missing due to problems with the equipment. During the visit to this laboratory one test in
heating mode was started in the calorimeter but it could not be completed due to a failure
in the humidifier of the outdoor room. The explanation given by the laboratorys respon38

sible personnel was that the pressure in the local water distribution network was too low
and out of the working range of the humidifier.
During the visit to the Laboratory 1s facilities, the tests on sample 2 could not be performed. The unit started but not its compressor. This problem could not be fixed during
the visit. Another sample was installed and tested during the visit. No further notice has
been received about sample 2.
The direct consequence of these failures is that we received only 2 or 3 sets of test results
for each type of test (i.e., by sample, mode and test method), except for the tests performed by the Australian laboratory and the JRAIA.
The basic results delivered by the 4 Chinese testing laboratories are given in Appendix A.
The results received are the average values over the measurement periods of 35 minutes.
The full data sheets including 7 sets of measurement values for each test and the data
curves of the entire testing process of each test are being provided by CNIS.
The declarations of uncertainties for the 4 Chinese laboratories are given in Appendix D.
Comments of any type given in this report refer to the four Chinese laboratories participating in the study. If a comment refers to the Australian or the Japanese laboratories, it is
clearly indicated in the text.
II.2 ANALYSIS OF RESULTS

II.2.1 General Analysis


For all the laboratories, the average values of the test conditions fulfill the requirements
of the testing standard concerning the variation allowed for the arithmetical mean values
from the specified test conditions. The maximum variations are given in Table 9.
Table 9 Variations Allowed During Steady-state Cooling and Heating Capacity Tests
Readings

Variations of arithmetical
mean values from specified
test conditions

Maximum variation of
individual readings from
specified test conditions

0,3 C
0,2 Ca)

1,0 C
0,5 Ca)

0,3 C
0,2 Cb)

1,0 C
0,5 Cb)

5%

10 %

Temperature of air entering indoor-side:


dry-bulb
wet-bulb
Temperature of air entering outdoor-side:
dry-bulb
wet-bulb
Air volume flowrate

a) Not applicable for heating tests.


b) Only applies to cooling capacity tests if equipment rejects condensate to the outdoor coil.

39

The only exception refers to the air flow rates of the indoor units measured using the air
enthalpy method for which ISO 5151 1994 requires a maximum variation of 5%. This
point will be discussed in section II.2.6.
In the following pages, we show an abstract of the results for the capacities and efficiencies, together with the deviation of each individual measurement with reference to the
average value of each parameter.

II.2.2 Methodology
There are several approaches to defining an accepted reference value for each characteristic of interest, specifically the cooling and heating capacities and the energy efficiency.
This reference value is necessary to compare the results obtained by the different laboratories.
The first possibility is to use for each characteristic the value measured by a reference
laboratory. For this study Laboratory 4 was chosen as reference laboratory; unfortunately
this laboratory has not been able to perform the tests using the air enthalpy method so the
lack of reference for this method obliges us to find another solution.
As a reasonable other possibility, we will use in this study the mean values of the population of measurements.
The mean values have been calculated for each characteristic and for each test configuration:
sample (1 to 4),
test mode (cooling or heating)
test method (calorimeter room method or air enthalpy method).
Due to the low number of measurements in some cases down to 2 measurements only
the trueness of the values obtained for each parameter is not guaranteed. The probability
that the mean values obtained are close to the true value of the parameters increases
with the number of results obtained, but it is not possible to calculate it within this study.
Each time it was possible, we have used 2 average values for each parameter: one calculated with the results of the calorimeter room method or with the results of the air enthalpy method, and a second one using the results of both test methods. As a result of this
decision, in the tables of Appendices B and C differences for each method means that
every individual result is compared with the average value obtained with all the results
for the same parameter obtained with the same method, and differences for both methods means that every individual result is compared with the average value obtained
with all the results for the same parameter obtained with both calorimeter and air enthalpy methods.

40

In order to use the maximum information to analyze the differences between laboratories,
we have tried to calculate the latent cooling capacity for each measurement in cooling
mode.
For the calorimeter method, the only available data is the vapor given by the humidifier
(indoor side). We have considered that the only condensation of water inside the room
was produced by the sample under test. The values obtained for the latent capacity seem
to be in line with the total cooling capacities measured and with the proportion of dehumidifying capacity that can be expected for a fixed speed air conditioner (between 20%
and 35% of the total cooling capacity following our experience with several thousands of
tests). The only risk is to obtain an overestimated value of the latent cooling capacity if
some water is condensed in the reconditioning apparatus, but it seems that this was not
the case in any laboratory.
For the air enthalpy method, we have calculated the difference between the total cooling
capacity and the sensible cooling capacity, calculating this last one for the air flow rate
and test conditions given by the laboratories for each test. This calculation has been performed using the equations given in the ASHRAE Handbook, Chapter 6 Psychometrics. These equations are basically the same as those given in the document
.
We have classified the comparison of the results in two groups:
I.

II.

By sample: We can then compare the results measured by all the laboratories. This allows us to check the differences between laboratories and between the 2 measurement methods;
By laboratory: we can check if there is any laboratory bias.

The data of T dry bulb for the calorimeter method in Laboratory 4 is only informative, as
the air outlet temperature is measured in one point and cannot be averaged like for the air
enthalpy method.
The following analysis of results is based on the differences between individual results
and the corresponding average values. The small number of results for each test configuration does not allow any statistical approach such as the study of the standard deviations.
In the rest of the report, the qualitative expressions low, normal, high, very high
or extremely high used to describe the differences found between test results are based
on our experiences with several other round robin tests in the last few years between European, Asian and Australian laboratories. All these round robin tests were performed
using the calorimeter room method. It also refers to the known experience of other laboratories at the international level: it is recognized that the differences obtained by using the
calorimeter room method between laboratories fulfilling the quality requirements of the
standard ISO/IEC 17025 should be lower than 3% for the cooling or heating capacities.

41

When the comment is not based on this experience with other RRT or laboratories, we
indicate the reference (e.g., value of uncertainty, etc.).
In this report, when we say that a difference is higher than twice the claimed uncertainty
of measurement or that a difference is not in accordance with the claimed value of the
uncertainty, it means that the uncertainty of measurement is probably underestimated by
the laboratories.

II.2.3 Results by Sample


The detailed results are given in II.7, Appendix B.
In this section, the maximum differences for each parameter are calculated by comparing
the minimum difference to the maximum one in the column called difference for each
method in the tables of Appendix B. For instance the first value of Table 10 (total cooling capacity with the calorimeter room method is calculated in the following way using
the values given in II.6.1: 1.8% - (-1.5%) = 3.3%.
In Tables 11, 13, 15 and 17, the figures given are calculated for the tables of Appendix B
as the difference between the data in row average calorimeter method and the row average enthalpy method in the column differences for both methods. For instance the
first value of Table 11 (Total cooling capacity) is calculated in the following way using
the values given in II.6.1: 0.5% - (-0.5%) = 1%.
II.2.3.1 Sample 1 Results
For sample 1, the maximum differences between the measurements in the different laboratories are:
Table 10 Maximum Differences for Sample 1

Parameter

Calorimeter method

Air enthalpy method

Total cooling capacity

3.3 %
5.3 %
6.7 %
7.6 %
2.6 %
3.4 %
5.8 %
-

6.3 %
2.7 %
3.7 %
14.0 %
25.0 %
2.9 %
2.6 %
2.2 %
14.9 %

Power input in cooling mode


EER
Latent cooling capacity
Airflow rate in cooling mode
Heating capacity
Power input in heating mode
COP
Air flow rate in heating mode

From Table 10, we can make the following first comments:

42

Total cooling capacity: for both test methods, the maximum difference is higher than
twice the claimed uncertainty of measurement (around 1% for the calorimeter method
and 2.3% for the air enthalpy method). The maximum difference is normal for the calorimeter method and high for the air enthalpy method.
Power input in cooling mode: for both methods, the difference is very high, and is not in
accordance with the claimed value of the uncertainty (between 0.3% and 0.6%).
EER: for the calorimeter method, the difference is very high and greater than twice the
claimed uncertainty (2%). For the air enthalpy method, the maximum difference is in accordance with the uncertainty (2.5%).
Latent cooling capacity: the differences are high. For the calorimeter method, they follow the same trend as the variation of the results for the total cooling capacity. The differences are higher for the air enthalpy method but they do not follow the differences in
the airflow rate measurements. It is not possible to know which effect this can have on
the measurement of the performances of the sample.
Airflow rate in cooling mode: the differences are extremely high. ISO 5151 requires a
maximum variation of the mean value of 5% (see Table 9). We discuss this difference
more in detail in section II.2.3.5.
Heating capacity: the differences are normal and in accordance with the claimed uncertainties (2.5% for the calorimeter method and 2.3% for the air enthalpy method).
Power input in heating mode: like for the cooling mode, the differences are high. No
data is available for the uncertainty of the measurement.
COP: the differences are high for the calorimeter method and normal for the air enthalpy
method. No data is available for the uncertainty of the measurement.
Airflow in heating mode: the maximum difference is very high, although less than for
the cooling mode. By laboratory, the deviations from the average value follow the same
tendency than in cooling mode. See section II.2.3.5 for more details.

Table 11 Differences between Test Methods for Sample 1

Total cooling capacity

Difference between
methods
1.0 %

Power input in cooling mode

0.6 %

EER

0.4%

Heating capacity

1.5%

Parameter

43

Power input in heating mode

0.5%

COP

1.0%

The average values of the results obtained for each test method are similar.
II.2.3.2 Sample 2 Results
For sample 2, the maximum differences between the measurements in the different laboratories are:
Table 12 Maximum Differences for Sample 2

Parameter

Calorimeter method

Air enthalpy method

Total cooling capacity

2.2%

4.0%

Power input in cooling mode

1.4%

2.6%

EER

0.8%

1.4%

Latent cooling capacity

14.2%

11.6%

Airflow rate in cooling mode

22.2%

Heating capacity

1.2%

0.4%

Power input in heating mode

0.8%

2.2%

COP

1.8%

2.6%

Air flow rate in heating mode

17.6%

From Table 12, we can make the following first comments:


Main results (capacities, inputs and efficiencies): for both test methods, the maximum
difference are normal and within twice the claimed uncertainty of measurement.
Latent cooling capacity: the differences are high. For the calorimeter method, they follow the same trend as the variation of the results for the total cooling capacity. For the air
enthalpy method they follow a reverse trend compared with the differences in the airflow
rate measurements.
Airflow rates: like for sample 1, the differences are very high and are lower in heating
mode than in cooling mode.

44

Table 13 Difference between Test Methods for Sample 2

Parameter
Total cooling capacity
Power input in cooling mode
EER
Heating capacity
Power input in heating mode
COP

Difference between
methods

-0.2%
-0.8%
0.6%
2.2%
1.2%
1.0%

Like for sample 1, the differences between the average values given by each test method
are normal.
II.2.3.3 Sample 3 Results
For sample 3, the maximum differences between the measurements in the different laboratories are:
Table 14 Maximum Differences for Sample 3

Parameter

Calorimeter method

Air enthalpy method

Total cooling capacity

3.2%
2.2%
5.5%
9.0%
3.8%
0.4%
3.4%
-

5.1%
2.5%
6.3%
11.6%
24.4%
1.3%
4.4%
5.2%
22.6%

Power input in cooling mode


EER
Latent cooling capacity
Airflow rate in cooling mode
Heating capacity
Power input in heating mode
COP
Air flow rate in heating mode

From Table 14, we can make the following first comments:


Total cooling capacity: for both test methods, the maximum difference is higher than
twice the claimed uncertainty of measurement (around 1% for the calorimeter method
and 2.3% for the air enthalpy method).
Power input in cooling mode: for both methods, the difference is high and is not in accordance with the claimed value of the uncertainty (between 0.3% and 0.6%). Nevertheless, the difference for the calorimeter method is lower than for sample 1.

45

EER: for both methods, the difference is high, and is not in accordance with the claimed
value of the uncertainty (2% for the calorimeter method and 2.5% for the air enthalpy
method).
Latent cooling capacity: the differences are high. For the calorimeter method, they follow more or less the same tendency as the variation of the results for the total cooling capacity. The differences are higher for the air enthalpy method but they do not follow the
differences in the airflow rate measurements.
Airflow rate in cooling mode: the differences are very high and similar to those observed for sample 1.
Heating capacity: the differences are in accordance with the claimed uncertainties (2.5%
for the calorimeter method and 2.3% for the air enthalpy method).
Power input in heating mode: the difference is low for the calorimeter method and high
for the air enthalpy method. No data is available for the uncertainty of the measurement.
COP: the differences are high for both methods. No data is available for the uncertainty
of the measurement.
Airflow in heating mode: the maximum difference is very high, although less than for
the cooling mode. By laboratory, the variations from the average value follow the same
trend as cooling mode.
Table 15 Differences between Test Methods for Sample 3

Parameter
Total cooling capacity
Power input in cooling mode
EER
Heating capacity
Power input in heating mode
COP

Difference between
methods

0.6%
-0.8%
1.4%
3.9%
0.0%
3.8%

The differences for the heating capacity and the COP seem high, taking into account that
these are the differences between average values. For a MEPS policy, a difference around
4% for COP between two test methods seems excessive.
II.2.3.4 Sample 4 Results
For sample 4, the maximum differences between the measurements in the different laboratories are:

46

Table 16 Maximum Differences for Sample 4

Parameter

Calorimeter method

Air enthalpy method

Total cooling capacity

7.9%
3.2%
7.0%
32.6%
1.0%
5.4%
5.1%
-

0.6%
3.9%
4.4%
30.1%
19.9%
3.6%
4.1%
4.4%
21.0%

Power input in cooling mode


EER
Latent cooling capacity
Airflow rate in cooling mode
Heating capacity
Power input in heating mode
COP
Air flow rate in heating mode

The maximum differences are particularly high for all parameters except the cooling capacity for the air enthalpy method and the heating capacity for the calorimeter method.
In general, comments given for sample 1 apply with a special attention to the estimated
latent capacity which presents very high differences for both test methods.
Table 17 Differences between Test Methods for Sample 4

Parameter
Total cooling capacity
Power input in cooling mode
EER
Heating capacity
Power input in heating mode
COP

Difference between
methods

1.2%
-0.9%
1.8%
0.4%
-0.8%
0.4%

Like for sample 1, the differences between the average values given by each test method
are normal.
II.2.3.5 Conclusions on Results by Sample
The following table shows the maximum differences observed for each parameter and for
each test method. Each figure is the greatest of the values given in Table 10, Table 12,
Table 14, and Table 16.

47

Table 18 Overall Maximum Differences for the Four Samples

Parameter

Calorimeter method

Air enthalpy method

Total cooling capacity

7.9%

6.3%

Power input in cooling mode

5.3%

3.9%

EER

7.0%

6.3%

Latent cooling capacity (*)

14.2%

14.0%

Airflow rate in cooling mode

25.0%

Heating capacity

3.8%

Power input in heating mode

5.4%

COP

5.8%

3.6%
4.4%
5.2%

Air flow rate in heating mode

22.6%

(*) for the latent cooling capacity, the results for sample 4 have not been taken into account because the
data given by the Laboratory 1 are probably misprinted.

The differences observed are high for the cooling and heating capacities and for the energy efficiencies (see II.2.2). A difference of 7% difference in the EER may change the
energy efficiency class of an air conditioner.
The high differences for the electrical inputs are probably not due to the measuring devices themselves, as all laboratories use the same high quality apparatus. Therefore, deviations are more likely to come from differences in the installation and settings of the
sample and/or differences in test conditions not reflected by the readings of the air sampling devices (see section II.3 for some examples).
The differences observed for the latent cooling capacities may come from the method we
used to indirectly estimate the value of this parameter (see II.2.1). Without direct data
from the laboratories, it is difficult to reach any conclusion about this point. These differences may have little effect on the final results of the EER, but they indicate that the measurement of the dehumidifying capacity has to be improved.
More difficult to explain are the differences for the airflow rate. Among the possible
causes for these differences, the most common are:
Error in individual measurements. Errors due to the measuring instruments themselves are unlikely to happen.

Errors in the calculation of the air flow. This is unlikely to happen in laboratories
recognized by CNIS. We have performed the airflow rate calculations using the
data given by the laboratories and the small differences obtained can be explained
by the lack of data about the air temperature at the nozzles neck. We have used
the air temperature measured at the outlet of the indoor unit because it was the only one available, and the laboratories have used the temperature at the nozzles
which can be a few degrees different from the first one.

48

Volume flow given for different air densities. The differences in the air densities
between similar results can explain up to 3% difference, mainly due to the difference of atmospheric pressures (from 100 kPa to 103 kPa approximately between
the different tests).

Air flow losses between the sample and the airflow measuring device. This may
happen but it can be checked only with a specific tightness test (see II.3.3.2.2).

The indoor fan speed of the sample is not set to the same speed during the different tests. This is unlikely to happen for trained laboratory technicians. For the
tests performed during the visits, the setting of the fan speed was the right one
(high speed).

The horizontal and/or vertical louvers at the air outlet were not in the same position during the tests in the different laboratories. This is a possibility, as these positions were not specified in the RRT document. Nevertheless, small differences
in these positions should not lead to such a big difference in the airflow rate.
Some differences were observed during the visits (see section II.3).

Problems due to the installation of the duct and/or to the measurement of the static
pressure difference. This is the more realistic possibility: the laboratory measures
a difference of 0 Pa but in reality the fan of the airflow measuring device is helping or blocking the normal airflow of the sample. Some differences have been
observed between the different laboratories (see II.4).

The values of the air outlet temperatures and the details of the airflow rate measurements
(nozzles dimensions, pressure difference at the nozzles, etc.) seem to indicate that the airflow rate is actually well measured but some results are obviously very different from the
standard airflow rate of the samples for free discharge. As mentioned before, it is not
possible to know the true value of the airflow rate due to the small number of measurements so it is not possible to know which results are different from the free discharge
airflow rate of the samples.
Nevertheless the limited differences for the cooling and heating capacity do not show differences that could have been expected with so great of a difference in the air flows. It is
possible that the differences are within the uncertainty of the measurement observed during this round robin test and then the effect of the airflow rate differences cannot be separated from the other sources of uncertainties. The simulation presented in II.2.6 shows it
may be the case for this round robin test.
From the results sorted by sample it is not possible to reach a satisfactory explanation for
these differences in the airflow rate measurements. Another round robin test designed to
assess the measurement of the airflow rate for non-ducted units would be necessary to
identify the reasons for the differences and solve the problem.

49

II.2.4 Results by Laboratory


The detailed results are given in II.8, Appendix C.
It is important to remember that the results of each laboratory are compared with the average values obtained during the RRT for each parameter/method. The differences with
the true values of the parameters might differ.
In this report, when we say that a parameter is under evaluated, we mean that the mean
value of the measurements of a laboratory is lower than the average value calculated for
all the laboratories.
The data given in Table 19 to Table 22 are the same as in Appendix C, row Average,
column Differences for each method.
II.2.4.1 Laboratory 1
Table 19 Average Differences for Laboratory 1

Parameter

Calorimeter method

Air enthalpy method

-0.6%
1.5%
-2.1%
-8.1%
-

-0.9%
0.4%
-1.3%
-8.8%
4.0%
-0.8%
0.4%
-0.9%
3.8%

Total cooling capacity


Power input in cooling mode
EER
Latent cooling capacity
Airflow rate in cooling mode
Heating capacity
Power input in heating mode
COP
Air flow rate in heating mode

The EER determined using the calorimeter method appears to be under-evaluated, although it is not the case for sample 4 (see Appendix C).
The latent cooling capacity seems also to be under evaluated. The greatest deviation is for
sample 4. We have not enough information to know if these differences may have an effect on the final results.
The airflow rate is very close to the average value, except for sample 4 where it is 12%
greater than the mean value. This means that the dimensions of the duct installed between
the indoor unit and the discharge plenum and the installation of this duct may have an
influence on the measurement of the air flow.

50

There are no particular comments for other parameters.


II.2.4.2 Laboratory 2
Table 20 Average Differences for Laboratory 2

Parameter

Calorimeter method

Air enthalpy method

0.8%
-0.8%
1.6%
7.0%
-1.1%
0.5%
-1.5%
-

2.4%
0.1%
2.2%
1.4%
7.2%
-0.3%
-1.1%
0.7%
4.5%

Total cooling capacity


Power input in cooling mode
EER
Latent cooling capacity
Airflow rate in cooling mode
Heating capacity
Power input in heating mode
COP
Air flow rate in heating mode

For the air enthalpy method, the total cooling capacity and the EER seem to be slightly
over evaluated (+2.4% compared with the average values of all the laboratories).
Latent cooling capacity seems to be over evaluated for the calorimeter method. It presents
big variations for the air enthalpy method (from -5.8% to +14.7% depending of the sample). This has not a direct effect on the final result of the EER, but shows that some problems have occurred during these measurements.
The airflow rate seems over evaluated, although the difference between models of indoor
unit is very important: in cooling mode +12% for samples 1 to 3 and -7% for sample 4.
The tendency is the same in heating mode. As for Laboratory 1, this means that the dimensions of the duct installed between the indoor unit and the discharge plenum and the
installation of this duct may have an influence on the measurement of the air flow. See
II.2.6 for more discussion about this subject.
There are no particular comments for the other parameters.
II.2.4.3 Laboratory 3
Table 21 Average Differences for Laboratory 3

Parameter

Calorimeter method

Air enthalpy method

Total cooling capacity

Power input in cooling mode

-1.7%
-0.4%

51

EER

Latent cooling capacity

Airflow rate in cooling mode

Heating capacity

Power input in heating mode

COP

Air flow rate in heating mode

-1.2%
5.2%
-10.1%
0.9%
0.8%
-0.1%
-7.4%

The latent cooling capacity seems to be slightly over estimated. In the case of this laboratory, it may be related to the lower values of the airflow rates. In Table 28, the simulation
shows that the dehumidifying capacity may be lower for higher airflow rates.
The airflow rate seems under estimated, in a different proportion according to the model
of indoor unit. Once again, this shows that the shape of the duct and its installation seems
to have a big influence on the airflow rate measurement.
There are no particular comments for the other parameters.
II.2.4.4 Laboratory 4
Table 22: Average Differences for Laboratory 4

Parameter

Calorimeter method

Air enthalpy method

0.4%
-0.4%
0.8%
-0.9%
1.0%
-1.1%
2.1%
-

Total cooling capacity


Power input in cooling mode
EER
Latent cooling capacity
Airflow rate in cooling mode
Heating capacity
Power input in heating mode
COP
Air flow rate in heating mode

The COP seems to be over evaluated by this laboratory, but the tendency is not clear as
+2.1% is still within the differences found for other round robin tests and we cannot conclude that it is a permanent deviation from the average value calculated with all the laboratories. We would need more test results to confirm or deny a difference.
There are no particular comments for the other parameters.

52

II.2.4.5 Conclusions on Results by Laboratory


Some final results seem to be under or over evaluated, but the average differences in
these cases are close to 2% which is still a reasonable value and similar to the differences
found in other round robin tests. Further comparison tests would be necessary to confirm
these tendencies. Periodic round robin tests are required by ISO/IEC 17025 and further
results may help to confirm if there are differences statistically significant. Nevertheless,
the laboratories which seem to present systematic differences should revise their testing
procedures and facilities in order to determine if some measurements can be improved.
The main differences appear once again for the airflow rates measured with the indoor air
enthalpy method. More than the average differences themselves, the main comments are
about the very different behavior of this measurement according to the type of indoor
unit. Samples 1 to 3 are of the same model, and in the same laboratory the duct used for
these 3 samples is always the same, as observed during the visits of the laboratories. The
difference between the individual results and the average values are very similar for these
three samples, but can be very different for sample 4 for which another duct has been
used.
From one model of indoor unit to the other, the only difference in the test installation for
the air enthalpy method is the shape of the duct fitted between the indoor unit and the
plenum where the outlet air conditions (dry and wet bulb temperatures) are measured.
Some pictures of the ducts and pressure measurement positions used by each laboratory
are given in II.3.This fact may indicate that the measurement of the static pressure at the
outlet of the indoor unit is not performed in a satisfactory way, and then that the fan of
the airflow rate measuring apparatus is modifying the airflow rate of the sample.
The effect of this problem on the final results (EER and COP) is discussed in II.2.6.

II.2.5 Uncertainties Calculations


The detailed results are given in II.9, Appendix D. Several results have been given by the
laboratories without any estimation of the corresponding uncertainty of measurement.
There are two documents available in China for the calculation of the uncertainties of
measurements related with this RRT:

CNAS-GL08 Guidance on evaluating the uncertainty in electrical apparatus testing which describes the calculation of the uncertainty of the measurement of the
total cooling capacity using the calorimeter room method. The general methodology can be used for the heating but the basic equation is very different than for the
cooling mode.

Document Evaluation and expression of cooling capacity uncertainty by air enthalpy method which describes the calculation of the uncertainty of the measurement of the total cooling capacity using the air enthalpy method. This method

53

can be easily used for the heating mode by replacing the enthalpies difference by
the sensible heats differences.
II.2.5.1 Laboratory 1
Table 23 Average Uncertainties for Laboratory 1

Parameter
Total cooling capacity
Power input in cooling mode
EER
Heating capacity
Power input in heating mode
COP

Calorimeter method

Air enthalpy method

1.0%
0.3%
2.0%
-

2.3%
0.6%
2.5%
Not calculated
Not calculated
Not calculated

II.2.5.2 Laboratory 2
No values of uncertainty from this laboratory have been received.
II.2.5.3 Laboratory 3
Table 24 Average Uncertainties for Laboratory 3

Parameter

Calorimeter method

Air enthalpy method

2.4%
0.2%
2.5%
2.4%
0.2%
2.5%

Calorimeter method

Air enthalpy method

0.9%

Total cooling capacity


Power input in cooling mode
EER
Heating capacity
Power input in heating mode
COP

II.2.5.4 Laboratory 4
Table 25 Average Uncertainties for Laboratory 4

Parameter
Total cooling capacity
Power input in cooling mode

Not calculated

EER

Not calculated

2.6%

Heating capacity

54

Power input in heating mode

Not calculated

COP

Not calculated

II.2.5.5 Conclusions about the Uncertainties Calculation


During the laboratory visits, it has been difficult to get information about uncertainties of
measurements, both for individual measurements and for uncertainties of the test results.
This is probably due to the fact that the persons present during the visit were persons responsible for the tests, but not for the calibrations and the calculation of the uncertainties.
Table 26 presents the uncertainties declared by the different laboratories during the visit
or in the document Round Robin Testing Process Record.
Table 26 Declared Uncertainties of Individual Measurements
Instrument

Lab 1

Lab 2

Lab 3

Lab 4

Realistic

PT100 (temperature)

0.1 K

0.015 K

0.1 K

0.1 K

0.1 K

Electrical input (W)


Humidifying or condensed water
flow rate (kg/s or l/s)
Refrigerant weight (kg)

1%

0.1 %

0.02 %

n.d.

0.3 %

5%

10 g

n.d.

n.d.

1%

0.5 %

10 g

0.1 %

10 g

0.5 %

ESP or pressure difference (Pa)

0.1 %

0.14 %

0.5 %

n.d.

1 Pa

Atmospheric pressure (kPa)

0.1 %

100 Pa

0.1 %

20 Pa

0.1 %

n.d.

n.d.

3%

n.d.

2%

Airflow rate (m /s)

n.d.: not declared

The column on the right of the table gives some references about lower uncertainties that
can be achieved using precision devices.
If all the components of the uncertainty of measurement are taken into account, like the
drift, these uncertainties may become slightly greater than those given in this column.
Some uncertainties given by the laboratories are much lower than the values given as
realistic and their estimation should be revised. This has no direct impact on the results
of the tests, but this revision will help the laboratories to know better their measuring devices and to get reliable information before deciding any improvement in their measuring
system.
The following table shows an abstract of uncertainties prepared with values claimed by
all the laboratories. We suppose that the four laboratories are using the same reference
documents and that the data that have not been given by some laboratories would have
been very similar to those given by other laboratories.

55

These uncertainties have generally been declared for a confidence level of 95% and a
coverage factor k=2.
Table 27 Average Uncertainties by Parameter and Test Method

Parameter

Calorimeter method

Air enthalpy method

Total cooling capacity

Heating capacity

1.0%
0.3%
2.0%
2.6%

Power input in heating mode

Not calculated

COP

Not calculated

2.3%
0.2% to 0.6%
2.5%
2.4%
0.2%
2.5%

Power input in cooling mode


EER

The methodology followed in the two available Chinese documents is adequate for the
calculation of the uncertainties of type B (i.e., the uncertainties coming from the measuring devices used during the test).
Despite this fact, several maximum differences obtained during the RRT show that the
uncertainties calculated by the laboratories do not reflect the real overall uncertainties of
the test results. Some measured differences are greater than twice the claimed uncertainty, which means that these claimed uncertainties are too low compared with real results.
For any laboratory, several actions are possible for reaching a more realistic evaluation of
the uncertainties of measurement:

The individual uncertainties of the measuring instruments should be revised in order to avoid overly optimistic evaluations.

The estimation of the uncertainties for each term of the equations should be revised for the same reason. Special attention should be given to heat losses through
the walls of the rooms for the calorimeter method and to the airflow rate for the
air enthalpy method.

If not done yet, an estimation of the heat losses between the outlet of the indoor
unit and the point where the outlet air conditions are measured should be completed (air enthalpy method only). The corresponding uncertainty should be taken
into account.

An important part of the final uncertainty of measurement comes from factors that
cannot be taken into account by the evaluation of an uncertainty of type B. These
factors are, for instance, the installation of the sample, the refrigerant charge, the
actual test conditions (small differences in the atmospheric pressure, temperature,
and humidity), and the technician in charge of the test (positioning of the louvers

56

of the indoor unit, positioning of the air samplers, tightness of the duct). The way
to take these effects into account is to develop an estimation of the uncertainty of
type A with sufficient data to use a statistical approach of the uncertainty calculation.
For an estimation of an uncertainty of type A, several methods are possible. The first one
is to use the results of the available round robin tests in which the laboratory has participated, the second one is to make an internal study with several tests of one or more samples.
The first method is generally not practicable, as it requires several independent measurements of the same parameter in each laboratory and it is generally not the case for an
RRT where each test requires a lot of time. It is used for other types of measurements like
in chemistry where tens of tests can be performed in many laboratories and then give
enough results to reach a good approximation of the test method uncertainty. It is generally considered that at least 50 measurements of the same parameter are necessary to give
a statistically representative result.
For EER and COP measurements, it would be impossible to reach this number of results
because in practice it would mean too many installations of the same sample and likely
the major failure of a component before completing all the tests.
The second method requires one or more samples to be tested several times with different
installation and refrigerant charging of the sample(s). It is time consuming but gives a
good idea of the uncertainties of type A for a single laboratory. Our experience shows
that the uncertainty of type A determined with this method is of the same order of magnitude as the uncertainty of type B for the same test.

II.2.6 Conclusions on Test Results


The results of the round robin test concerning the EER and the COP measurements do not
show extreme deviations. A deviation can be considered extreme if the differences are
much greater than twice the known uncertainty of the measurement method.
The European standard EN 14511 requires a maximum uncertainty of 5% for the calorimeter method and of 10% for the indoor air enthalpy method. These values are an expanded uncertainty of measurements expressed at the 95% level of confidence. The revision of ISO 5151 currently under work also gives the same limits.
The maximum deviation from the medium value for the capacities is 2.4%, and 2.2% for
the efficiencies. These deviations are in agreement with the maximum uncertainty of
measurement required by the testing standards. The maximum differences between laboratories are lower than 7.9% for the capacity measurements and lower than 7.0% for the
energy efficiencies, which is also in agreement with ISO 5151:1994 (less than twice the

57

required uncertainty). These deviations include not only the uncertainty of the measurement itself, but also the effect of the differences in the installation of the samples.
No significant difference has been observed between the average capacities and efficiencies measured by the calorimeter method and the air enthalpy method, although it is
known that the uncertainty is higher for the indoor air enthalpy method than for the calorimeter method. This point is developed in II.4. The differences in the airflow rate measurements also show that the results obtained using the air enthalpy method should be
used with care.
A maximum difference of 25.0 % has been observed for the airflow rate measured by different laboratories for the same indoor unit. Unfortunately, as described before, it has not
been possible to find an explanation to this difference. It seems logical to conclude that
there is a problem in the measurement of the static pressure at the outlet of the indoor
units, but the final results do not show big differences.
To try to reach a preliminary conclusion, we have used a commercial simulation software
used for the design of new models. The results have been obtained for a large air/air split
heat pump and are shown in Table 28.
Table 28 Simulation for a Difference of 10% in the Indoor Airflow Rate

Airflow rate indoor


Mode
Cooling or heating capacity (%)
Dry bulb, air outlet (C)
Dehumidifying capacity (%)
EER/COP

90%

100%

110%

COOLING

HEATING

COOLING

HEATING

COOLING

HEATING

98,2%

99,5%

100,0%

100,0%

101,1%

100,3%

13,8

38,8

13,8

37,0

13,8

35,5

25,5%

22,9%

20,9%

3,2

4,1

3,2

4,2

3,2

4,4

The simulation shows that the differences are not very important. For instance between
the two extreme airflow rates (20% difference between the flow rates):
Difference for the total cooling capacity: 3%
Difference for the EER: none
Difference for the heating capacity: 1%
Difference for the COP: 7%
These differences are within the uncertainty of the measurements for the air enthalpy method and this may explain why we have not found any tendency for variation of the results in function of the airflow rate differences. Nevertheless, we have determined that
the differences in the airflow rate were real and that differences similar to those given by
the simulation should have been observed. From this simulation, we can see it is highly
probable to measure the COP with an unacceptable uncertainty if the problems of measurements of the airflow rate are not solved.

58

Finally, the results by laboratory do not show a tendency about a possible degradation of
the performances of the samples after several installations, tests and transports.
II.3 EVALUATION OF THE TEST FACILITIES

II.3.1 General Comments


During the round robin test, a visit was organized to witness the tests and to assess the
testing facilities and the test procedures used by each laboratory.
These visits were attended by the responsible persons of each laboratory and by a person
from CNIS. Each time that it was possible, one test in cooling mode and one in heating
mode were performed during the visit for each test method covered by the laboratory.
Both test methods were observed in Laboratory 1 and 2. Only the calorimeter method
was observed in Laboratory 4 although the facility used for the indoor air enthalpy method could have been visited. Laboratory 3 only uses the air enthalpy method.
In general, the design and quality of the test facilities are satisfactory and in accordance
with the requirements of the testing standard. In general, the measuring devices, their
precision and their calibration are satisfactory and in accordance with the requirements of
the testing standard. Some deviations have been observed during the visits and are explained for each laboratory, as well as some observations. In II.3.1, we describe the
points that refer to the four laboratories and in II.3.2, we specify some comments particular to each laboratory. We also describe with more details the measurement of some parameters when they are performed in different ways by the laboratories (see II.3.2).
Another issue that will require some improvements is the installation of the sample itself.
For instance in three of the laboratories, the tests have been performed with some parts of
the refrigerant piping without thermal insulation (see the photos below).
Figure 5 Refrigerant Piping Without and With Thermal Insulation

59

The effect on the capacity is small but, together with all the small details that have to be
considered during the installation of the samples, it can make the difference between a
Passed or Not Passed result within a MEPS program.
During the visit, it was not possible to check the refrigerant charging procedures in all the
laboratories but nevertheless some disconformities have been detected. For example, removing hoses still containing refrigerant in liquid phase after the charging lead to a greater leakage than when the hose is removed with refrigerant in gas phase or if a quick connect/disconnect sealing valve is used.
Also related to the settings of the samples is that the lack of clear criteria about the position of the horizontal vane or louver at the air outlet of the indoor unit in some laboratories. In some cases, this position was not exactly identical for the same sample tested by
the same laboratory with both calorimeter and air enthalpy methods. In particular, some
settings of this vane of the indoor unit were not in a position giving the maximum airflow
rate, in contradiction with clause 4.1.4.1.d) of ISO 5151:1994.
The impact on the air flow with free air discharge should not be very important but the
sum of all the small details we are describing in this part of the report may together
change a pass/not passed result if the performance of the unit under test are very close to
the limit defined in a MEPS.
For the measurement of the air temperature and humidity conditions, most of the laboratories are using a double measurement for the dry and wet bulb in order to ensure the
quality of the measurements, except Laboratory 1 where only one measurement device is
used for each parameter. The use of a second measurement helps detect quickly any potential problems in the measurement of the test conditions. The flexible ducts used to
transport the air sampled at the inlet of the indoor or outdoor units to the temperature
measurement devices is generally insulated, except in Laboratory 3. The temperature is
generally not perfectly uniform within the room and can have a small effect on the temperatures actually measured if this duct is not properly insulated.
Regarding the calorimeter room test method, all the laboratories using this method have a
balanced ambient room type calorimeter, which the better solution for this method.
The maximum test capacity varies with the dimensions of the rooms between 7 and 14
kW. These calorimeters follow the requirements of the testing standard except the oldest
one (Laboratory 1) which is not measuring the air temperature conditions at the location
specified by the standard. It is important to note that this laboratory will change its location and build new facilities in 2010.The control of the test conditions is not performed
exactly in the same way by all the laboratories, but it fulfills the maximum tolerances required by the testing standard in every case.
The condensate flow rate in cooling mode is generally not measured directly at the condensate outlet of the indoor unit, but rather estimated by measuring the water flow rate
entering the humidifying apparatus. This measurement is made using weight or volume
60

difference as a function of the time. There is a possibility of error in the measurement if


part of the vapor is condensed in the reconditioning apparatus of the room and not by the
sample under test. Laboratory 4 is the only laboratory to also perform a direct measurement of the condensate flow rate.
For the calculation of the heat exchange through the walls of the rooms of the calorimeters, all the laboratories use the measurement of the temperatures of both sides of the
walls in several points (up to 9 positions for a wall) using thermocouples. The heat exchange coefficient is generally calculated by the laboratories using data given by the supplier of the calorimeter, except for Laboratory 2 which declares performing a calibration
of this coefficient following the method given in clause B.4.3 of ISO 5151:1994. Both
possibilities (calculation or calibration) are allowed by the testing standard although the
calibration is more accurate.
The thermocouples used for the wall temperatures are generally embedded in the wall
near the surface and are not easily removable. They are not calibrated as temperature
measurement devices although the corresponding channels of the data acquisition system
are verified periodically. This calibration should be performed periodically as for the other measurement devices, although it is much more important to perform a good calibration of the heat transfer coefficient of the walls.
In regards to the indoor air enthalpy test method, the facilities of the different laboratories
are designed for maximum capacities between 12 and 80 kW. All of them are able to fulfill the test condition requirements of the standard. The main difference observed during
the visits is the way to connect the unit to the plenum where the wet and dry bulb air
temperatures at the outlet are measured, and where the static pressure (ESP) is measured.
The length of the duct varies from a laboratory to another for the same sample and the
position of the pressure taps used to measure the ESP may be in the same duct or in the
discharge plenum.

II.3.2 Comments on Individual Laboratories


II.3.2.1 Laboratory 1
As mentioned before, this is the oldest of the four laboratories. In 2010, new facilities
will be built which will solve the differences observed during the visit and which we describe below.
This laboratory uses calorimeter and air enthalpy methods in different facilities.
For the air enthalpy method, the duct between the indoor unit air outlet and the discharge
plenum is short and the measurement of the ESP is performed in 4 points at the end of the
duct, just before entering the discharge plenum (see Figure 6).

61

Figure 6 Air Enthalpy Method at Laboratory 1

This position of the ESP measurement is not correct. It should be done in the discharge
plenum or in a longer straight length of the duct (see II.3.3.2.2). At the position used by
Laboratory 1, there is no guarantee that the air flow is uniform.
The calorimeter used for this study presents a difference compared with the other laboratories and not in agreement with the testing standard: the measurement of the air inlet
conditions indoor side is performed at the outlet of the reconditioning apparatus which is
situated about 1.5 m from the indoor unit (see Figure 7).
Figure 7 Indoor Room Air Sampling

62

In order to evaluate the possible difference between the dry bulb temperature measured
by the laboratory and the actual dry bulb temperature at the inlet of the indoor unit, two
thermocouples have been placed during the test in cooling mode near the air inlet. During
the visit, the temperatures measured by these thermocouples were between 0.1 K and 0.3
K below the temperature measured at the outlet of the reconditioning apparatus. This difference can have a small effect on the capacity measured.
The position of the air sampling apparatus also results in the use of a position of the vane
at the air outlet which does not correspond to the maximum air flow (see Figure 7).
The coefficient of heat exchange through the wall is calculated. It should be calibrated.
II.3.2.2 Laboratory 2
Both calorimeter and air enthalpy methods are used in the same two-room facility.
For the air enthalpy method, the duct between the indoor unit air outlet and the discharge
plenum is long and the measurement of the ESP is performed in 4 points at the end of the
duct, just before entering the discharge plenum (see). This measurement position seems
to fulfill the conditions required for ducted units in the revision of ISO 13253 and we
consider it as one of the right ways to measure the ESP (the length of the duct is a minimum of 2.5 4 A B where A = width and B = height of duct. Static pressure
readings are taken at a distance of 2

A B from the outlet).

Figure 8 Air Enthalpy Method at Laboratory 2

For the calorimeter method, the coefficient of heat exchange through the wall is calibrated, which is the best solution for this parameter.

63

II.3.2.3 Laboratory 3
This laboratory uses only the indoor air enthalpy method.
For the air enthalpy method, the duct between the indoor unit air outlet and the discharge
plenum is short and the measurement of the ESP is performed in 4 points in the first section of the discharge plenum (see figure below).
Figure 9 Air Enthalpy Method at Laboratory 3

The measurement of the ESP in the plenum is one of the correct ways to measure, and it
also allows the use of short ducts.
The air sampling device is placed at about 50 cm from the air inlet of the outdoor unit,
which seems excessive and may leads to small differences in the air conditions measurements if they are not perfectly uniform in that part of the room.
Figure 10 Air Sampling Outdoor Side at Laboratory 3

64

II.3.2.4 Laboratory 4
This laboratory uses calorimeter and air enthalpy methods in different facilities, and only
the calorimeter method has been used for this study.
In regards to the air enthalpy method, we want to mention that the duct between the indoor unit air outlet and the discharge plenum is short and the measurement of the ESP is
performed in 4 points in the first section of the discharge plenum.
Like for Laboratory 3, this position of measurement of the ESP is correct.
Concerning the calorimeter method, this laboratory is the only one measuring directly the
condensate flow rate using a weight gauge. This is the best way to perform this measurement.
The coefficient of heat exchange through the wall is calculated. It should be calibrated.

II.3.3 Guidelines to Improving Quality of the Tests


II.3.3.1 Installation of the Samples
As mentioned before, some small incidences have been found during the visit concerning
the installation of the sample. It is necessary to remember that including the smallest details may have an influence on the final result and that it is responsibility of the testing
laboratory to install the unit in the way required by the testing standard.
Two points about the installation of the sample can be highlighted:

Insulation of the refrigerant piping: the refrigerant pipes should be insulated, including the pipes connections. If the corresponding accessories are delivered
with the sample then they should be used; if not, the laboratory should provide the
insulation. If provided by the laboratory, the polyethylene foam should have a
minimum thickness of 6 mm. The gas and liquid pipes should be insulated separately.

In the case where the refrigerant has to be refilled, special care should be given to
the whole process to ensure that there is no leakage during the charging. Special
care shall be given at the end of the process when the charging hose has to be removed from the service valve. This can be achieved by using quick connect/disconnect sealing valves or by removing the charging hoses with the sample
running in cooling mode so the refrigerant is in gas phase at low pressure in the
zone of the service valve to which the charging hose is connected.

65

The testing procedures of the laboratories should be revised to include the details of the
installation of the samples and to highlight that the requirements for an installation in a
testing laboratory are greater than for a standard installation in a house.
About the settings of the sample for the tests, some points are critical. Clause 4.1.4.1.d)
of ISO 5151:1994 says: Grille positions, damper position, fan speeds, etc. shall be set to
result in maximum cooling capacity unless this is contrary to the manufacturers instructions. This means that for non-inverter samples, the following settings shall in general
be used:

Grilles, dampers, vanes, louvers should be placed in a position where the airflow
rate is the greatest. If the position of maximum airflow rate is not given by the
manufacturer, a possible criterion is to place these accessories in a position where
the pressure drop is minimum, i.e. parallel to the air flow and/or to the border surfaces of the air outlet. When using the air enthalpy method, the laboratory should
be able to check the position of these accessories after closing the duct (for instance with a transparent windows).

Fan speed should be set to the highest one. This means that if some special function like Turbo, Boost, Powerful or similar is permanent (i.e., does not
come back automatically to high speed after a certain time), it should be used for
the tests.

When performing test in heating mode, the highest room temperature should be
set with the control device of the sample. When performing measurements in
cooling mode, the lowest room temperature should be set with the control device.

For inverter samples, the above instructions are also to be followed, unless the manufacturer gives a special starting procedure to set the nominal frequency of the compressor. In
this last case the instructions of the manufacturer supersede the standard procedure. For
inverter samples, it is recommended to start the unit with temperature conditions close to
the test conditions. In many occasion this is part of the special starting procedure given
by the manufacturers.
II.3.3.2 Test Facilities
Most of the following comments are general and not directly related to observations
made during the visits to the laboratories, other have been commented in II.3.2 and are
given to improve some situations observed during the visits.

II.3.3.2.1 Calorimeter Room Method


Some advice is given in order to improve the quality of the tests using the calorimeter
method:

66

Position of the air samples: the air samplers should be placed at short distance
from the air inlet for both indoor and outdoor units. The distance between the air
sampler and the air inlet should be between 0.10 m and 0.15 m.

The flexible ducts between the air samplers and the temperature measurement locations should be insulated.

The heat transfer coefficients of the walls of the rooms should be calibrated. Differences of up to 15% between the calculated values and the calibrated ones have
been found in some European laboratories. The wall temperature measuring instruments should be calibrated, especially if thermocouples are used.

The condensate flow rate should be determined at the condensate outlet of the indoor unit in cooling mode.

Double checks should always be performed for measurements of the dry and wet
bulb temperatures. Dry bulb temperature should be checked with another dry bulb
temperature measurement. Wet bulb can be checked with another wet bulb temperature measurement, with a dew point temperature measurement or with a good
relative humidity measurement.

In cooling mode it is not necessary to control the outdoor air humidity for split
units. To do so will increase the uncertainty of the measurement of the total capacity performed in the outdoor compartment and thus the criteria of 4% maximum difference between the two measurements of the cooling capacity may fail
more frequently.

II.3.3.2.2 Indoor Air Enthalpy Method


Several points should be taken into account for the tests using the indoor air enthalpy method:
The measurement of the condensate flow rate should be always performed at the condensate outlet of the indoor unit in cooling mode and the corresponding value of the humidifying capacity compared with the value given by the air enthalpy calculation. This allows
detecting quickly possible air leakages or measuring instrument failures. This also allows
detecting problems in the wet bulb temperature measurement performed at the outlet of
the indoor unit: in most of the cases the outlet air is nearly saturated and the measurement
close to the saturation curve is more difficult.
It is recommended to perform periodically a check of the air tightness of the airflow rate
measuring apparatus. This can be done by closing the duct where the indoor unit is connected and measuring the leakage air flow rate with a very small nozzle with the fan of

67

the airflow measuring apparatus at full speed. The maximum value of this leakage should
be determined for each facility.
The measurement of ESP to adjust the free air discharge condition for the indoor unit
should be performed preferably in the discharge plenum. If the measurement is performed in the duct, it should verify the following requirements: the length of the duct
shall have a minimum value of 2.5

4 A B

where A = width and B = height

of duct, and static pressure readings shall be taken at a distance of 2 A B from the
outlet. This will avoid accidental measurement of dynamic pressure instead of static pressure.
It is to be noted that a third possibility is being developed within the revision of ISO 5151
(see Figure 11)
Figure 11 Discharge Chamber Requirements for Indoor Air Enthalpy Test Method

1
a

static pressure tappings


to air sampler and airflow measuring apparatus.

Note A: J=2.De where De = 4 A B . A and B are the dimensions of the


equipments air outlet.
Note B: V2 is the average air velocity at PL.2.

68

II.3.3.3 Uncertainty Calculations

II.3.3.3.1 Individual Measurements


As we saw before, some laboratories are claiming very low values for the uncertainties of
individual measurements as described in II.2.5.5. These uncertainty calculations should
be revised.
For individual measurements, the components of the uncertainty generally accepted
worldwide are the following ones (this information is based on the current work of ISO
86 SC 6 WG 1 about uncertainties):
Table 29 Components of Uncertainties for Individual Measurements
COVERAGE
SOURCE OF
ESTIMATION
PROBABILITY
VALUE
FACTOR, k
UNCERTAINTY
BASIS
DISTRIBUTION

STANDARD
UNCERTAINTY

Calibration

Calibration
certificate

U1

Normal

u1

U1
2

Resolution

Specifications

U2

Rectangular

2 3

u2

U2
2 3

Correction

Calibration
certificate

U3

Rectangular

u3

U3
3

Drift

Calibration
certificates

U4

Rectangular

u4

U4
3

Stability (in
time)

Mean

s5

Standard deviation on a
mean value

s5
n

n is the number of values recorded during the acquisition time


The combined expanded uncertainty, U, is thus calculated as follows:
If the calibration correction is applied:
U 2 u12 u22 u32 u42 ui2

s5
n

If the calibration correction is not applied:


U 2 u12 u22 u42 ui2

s5
U3
n

69

In actual measurement of parameters during the tests of air conditioners or heat pumps,
the number of measurements performed during the test is very high (several measures
ments per minute) so the term 5 can be neglected.
n

II.3.3.3.2 Calorimeter Room Method


The method to calculate the uncertainty of the measurement of the total cooling capacity
measured in the indoor side is given in document CNAS-GL08:2006, pages 109 to 117.
The method is correct and takes into account all the components of the uncertainty of
type B. The only comment is that in practice for the measurement of each set of parameters during the tests of air conditioners or heat pumps, the number of measurements performed during the test is very high (several measurements per minute) so the term u9 corresponding to the uncertainty due to the stability in function of the time of the total cooling capacity measured each 5 min (7 values during the measuring period) can be neglected, as each one of the 7 values is itself the average value of many measurements.
For this reason, the term e defined in the Chinese document should not be considered.
The uncertainties of type A should instead be determined following the method described
in II.3.3.3.4.
Document CNAS-GL08 gives no explicit provisions for the calculation of the uncertainty
of measurement for the EER, the heating capacity and the COP. This document gives the
general method for the calculation of the uncertainties of type A (pages 19 to 22, item
3.3.1), but does not explain how this method can be used for air conditioners, except to
take into account the stability in time of the total cooling capacity during the measurement period of one single test, which can be considered as negligible.
For the heating capacity, the equation is:

hi ci Pic lp li

where:

hi
ci
Pic
lp
li

is the heating capacity, indoor-side compartment, in W


is the heat removed from indoor-side compartment, in W
is the other power input to the indoor-side compartment (e.g. illumination, electrical and
thermal power input to the compensating device, heat balance of the humidification device), in W.
is the heat leakage into indoor-side compartment through partition separating indoor-side
from outdoor-side, in W
is the heat leakage into indoor-side compartment through walls, floor and ceiling, in W

The calculation of the uncertainties for Pic, lp and li are performed in the same way
than for Pt, 1P and 1t as described in document CNAS-GL08 for the cooling mode.
For ci, the following equation is used: ci = q . . Cp . (TS TE)

70

where:
q (l/s) is the water flow in the cooling coil of the reconditioning apparatus;
(kg/l) is the density of the water;
Cp (J/kg.K) is the specific heat of the water;
TS (C) is the temperature of the water leaving the room;
TE (C) is the temperature of the water entering the room.

The uncertainty component due to ci is calculated using the method described in the document CNAS-GL08 (propagation coefficients, uncertainties and freedom degrees). Due to
the small variation of those parameters in the small range of temperatures (typically between 25C and 35C) used to cool the outdoor room, and Cp of the pure water can be
considered as constants and the uncertainty corresponding to their calculation can be neglected.

II.3.3.3.3 Indoor Air Enthalpy Method


The document Evaluation and expression of cooling capacity uncertainty by air enthalpy
method sent by CNIS describes the calculation of uncertainty of the measurement of the
total cooling capacity using the air enthalpy method. This method can be easily used for
the heating mode by replacing the enthalpies difference by the sensible heats differences.
The calculation seems in general correct, although a translation to English of the document would be necessary to check the details of the calculations.
Like for the calorimeter method, one of the components of the uncertainty is of type A,
this time with 3 values of the total cooling capacity. Our opinion is that this term should
be neglected, as each one of the 3 values is itself the average value of many measurements. We propose to use the method described in II.3.3.3.4 to determine the uncertainties of type A.

II.3.3.3.4 Proposal for the Determination of the Uncertainties of Type A


The purpose of the determination of the uncertainties of type A is to consider the uncertainty components which are not due to the uncertainty of the individual measurements,
i.e. all the uncertainty components which cannot be determined by the uncertainty of type
B. These uncertainty components are due to the effect of the installation of the sample,
the refrigerant charge, the settings of the sample, the atmospheric pressure, the technician, the small differences in the test conditions, etc.
To determine these effects, the same unit is installed several times, each time in different
days, recharging each time the unit and, if possible, with a different technician responsible of the test. The sample shall be representative of the range of capacities of the facility.
If the range is large two samples of different capacities may be chosen. For each installation the sample is tested in cooling and heating mode so the uncertainty of type A can be
evaluated for both modes.
71

Once we obtain a minimum set of values (at least 5 in order to reach a coverage factor
lower than 3), the procedure described in document CNAS-GL08 for calculation of uncertainties of type A can be followed. The uncertainty of type A is then combined with the uncertainty of type B. This process can be applied for the cooling and heating capacities and
for the EER and COP.
II.4 COMPARISON WITH JRAIA LABORATORY RESULTS
The results obtained by the JRAIA laboratory have been received at the end of the
project.10
The tests performed include the following ones:

Air enthalpy

Cooling

Heating

OK

OK

OK

OK

OK

Heating

Heating

OK

Cooling

Cooling

Calorimeter

Heating

Calorimeter

Air enthalpy

Cooling

JRAIA

Heating

Cooling

Heating

Calorimeter

Air enthalpy

Cooling

Heating

Cooling

Calorimeter
Cooling

Method

Mode

2
Air enthalpy

Heating

Sample

For sample 3, the comparison with the average values of the results obtained by the Chinese laboratories is as follows:
Table 30 Comparison of Results in Cooling Mode for Sample 3
SAMPLE 3
Results
COOLING MODE
Capacity
Input
Average calorimeter method
3 639
1 317
JRAIA calorimeter method
3 548
1 307
Difference (%)
-2.5%
-0.8%
Average air enthalpy method
3 614
1 328
JRAIA air enthalpy method
3 512
1 315
Difference (%)
-2.8%
-1.0%

10

EER
2.76
2.71
-1.8%
2.72
2.67
-1.9%

Latent
895
1 046
16.9%

For the full report of the JRAIA testing results, see the Japan Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Industry
Associations report, Support for Activities on Enhanced Test Techniques of Testing Laboratories of Air
Conditioning Equipment in Vietnam and China (in Japanese).

72

Table 31 Comparison of Results in Heating Mode for Sample 3


SAMPLE 3
Results
HEATING MODE
Capacity
Input
Average calorimeter method
3 954
1 212
JRAIA calorimeter method
3 706
1 255
Difference (%)
-6.3%
3.6%
Average air enthalpy method
3 804
1 211
JRAIA air enthalpy method
3 814
1 246
Difference (%)
0.3%
2.9%

COP
3,27
2,95
-9.6%
3,14
3,06
-2.6%

The results in cooling mode are within tolerances but seem to show that the sample was
maybe tested with less refrigerant charge than in China. Nevertheless, the results in heating mode do not confirm this hypothesis (higher electrical input).
In heating mode the difference is greater for the calorimeter method. No explanation has
been found to explain this difference. The result for the heating capacity may be due to a
lack of refrigerant, but in this case the electrical input should also be lower than the average value. In heating mode the difference between the results of heating capacity using
the calorimeter or the air enthalpy method is 2.9%.
For sample 4, the comparison with the average values of the results obtained by the Chinese laboratories is as follows:
Table 32 Comparison of Results in Cooling Mode for Sample 4
SAMPLE 4
Results
COOLING MODE
Capacity
Input
EER
Average calorimeter method
4 904
1 815
2.70
JRAIA calorimeter method
4 200
1 719
2.44
Difference (%)
-14.4%
-5.3%
-9.5%
Table 33 Comparison of Results in Heating Mode for Sample 4
SAMPLE 4
Results
HEATING MODE
Capacity
Input
Average calorimeter method
5 548
1 767
JRAIA calorimeter method
5 276
1 790
Difference (%)
-4.9%
1.3%

Latent
1 103
1 004
-9.0%

COP
3.14
2.95
-6.1%

The results in cooling mode are very low, particularly the cooling capacity. Possible
causes are a lack of refrigerant or a problem with the four ways valve of the sample, or
another type of failure of the sample. The difference is much less in heating mode, making the hypothesis of insufficient refrigerant difficult to confirm.
The differences observed for sample 4, and also for sample 3 in heating mode, seem too
high to be explained by a laboratory bias. Differences in the refrigerant charges are not
confirmed by all the results (electrical inputs). A possible explanation is that the samples
73

have suffered some damage during the transport. Further round robin testing would be
necessary to reach a conclusion.
II.5 CONCLUSIONS OF THE STUDY
The main conclusions of the studies are the following ones:

The Chinese independent laboratories which have participated in the round robin
testing show a good level of quality for the measurement of the energy efficiencies of air/air air conditioners and heat pumps. Some improvements may be considered for both testing methods. Some of them have been scheduled like in the
case of Laboratory 1.

The differences between the results obtained by the different laboratories are
compatible with the maximum uncertainty of measurement for these tests, although the maximum difference of 7% obtained for the energy efficiency seems
high for a MEPS system. The higher the maximum difference in the test result,
the higher the possibility that the same model tested in different laboratories have
different results relative to the MEPS low limits. Actions designed to reduce this
difference by improving the quality of the tests should be taken. Periodic round
robin tests performed on a regular basis would be the best way to check the effectiveness of the improvements and to verify that the quality of the test remains
constant. Furthermore, these periodical round robin tests are mentioned in clause
5.9.1.b) of ISO/IEC 17025:2005 and are considered as a requirement by most of
the accreditation bodies.

A maximum difference of 25.0 % has been observed for the airflow rate measured
by different laboratories for the same indoor unit. This difference is very high and
should be carefully assessed and sorted out. A specific round robin test designed for
this purpose would probably be necessary to achieve this goal.

No significant difference has been observed between the average capacities and efficiencies measured by the calorimeter method and the air enthalpy method. This
result is unexpected considering the differences in the airflow rate measurement and
the fact that uncertainty calculations and experience in other parts of the world indicate that the calorimeter room method is more accurate than the air enthalpy method.

Some improvements concerning the installation and the settings of the samples
should be studied. These possible improvements are described in II.3.3.

Additional round robin tests would be necessary to compare the results of the
Chinese laboratories with those of the JRAIA laboratory.

74

In our opinion, it is possible to enhance the quality of the testing without excessive efforts,
provided that some periodic verification is performed within the independent laboratories.
We would also like to point out that the air enthalpy method is not the best test method in a
MEPS environment, as this method has a greater uncertainty of measurement than the calorimeter room method, and above all because there is no verification of the result with a simultaneous measurement outdoor side.
It is recognized by ISO and CEN that the indoor air enthalpy method is not the most appropriate method for precision measurements. In the revision of ISO 5151, a verification method is recommended if the air enthalpy method is used:
For cooling capacity tests and steady-state heating capacity tests, a confirming test is
recommended to verify the results obtained using the indoor air enthalpy test method.
One of the following test methods can be used for confirming purposes:
1. Compressor calibration method
2. Refrigerant enthalpy method
3. Outdoor air enthalpy test method
4. Indoor calorimeter confirming test method
5. Outdoor calorimeter confirming test
6. Balanced calorimeter confirming test method
The results of the primary test shall agree with the results of the confirmation test within
5% to be valid.
Each verification method proposed in the previous paragraph will be described in the new
version of ISO 5151.
The Annex A Energy labeling application of the standard EN 14511-2:2007 concerning
the testing for the Energy Labeling Directive 2002/31/EC specifically indicates in its
clause A.3: When the present standard is used for the energy labeling of air conditioners and heat pumps below 12 kW, the cooling / heating capacities, power input and
EER/COP as well as the energy efficiency class of a product shall be determined by using
exclusively the calorimeter room method.
The air enthalpy method has several advantages for the development of new products, such
as the lower cost of the testing facilities and the shorter time required for the tests. Nevertheless, for control with a MEPS policy, it should be reserved for units that cannot be tested
using the calorimeter room method. In addition, a verification method should be used when
using the indoor air enthalpy method.

75

II.6 APPENDIX A: BASIC RESULTS

II.6.1 Laboratory 1

35.0
7.0
24.0
6.1
27.0
20.0
19.0
10.4
13.9
38.5
12.7
17.8
102.994 103.033
585
269.7
0.1
0.1
3 541
1 326
2.67

646.2
308.3
0.1
0.1
3 861
1 203
3.21

76

35.0
7.0
34.9
24.0
6.0
24.0
27.0
20.0
27.0
19.0
11.0
19.0
13.9
38.6
12.6
18.0
102.57 102.595 102.341
1.269
583.2
629.1
267.1
292.5
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
3 574
3 783
4 892
1 348
1 216
1 813
2.65
3.11
2.70

Heating

Calorimeter
Cooling

Heating

Cooling

Heating

Cooling

C
35.0
C
24.0
C
27.0
C
19.0
C
C
kPa 102.341
kg/h
1.269
m3/h
Pa
m
m
W
3 593
W
1 335
W/W
2.69

4
Air enthalpy

Air enthalpy
Heating

3
Calorimeter

Mode

Heating

Cooling

Heating

Cooling

Heating

2
Calorimeter Air enthalpy

Cooling

Dry bulb. air inlet. outdoor side


C
35.0
Wet bulb. air inlet. outdoor side
C
23.5
Dry bulb. air inlet. indoor side
C
27.0
Wet bulb. air inlet. indoor side
C
19.0
Dry bulb. air outlet. indoor side
C
Wet bulb. air outlet. indoor side
C
Atmospheric pressure
kPa 100.422
Vapour given by the humidifyer (indoor side) kg/h 1.282
Indoor unit air flow rate
m3/h
Pressure drop in noozles
Pa
Diameter noozle 1
m
Diameter noozle 2
m
Cooling or heating capacity
W
3 626
Power input
W
1 382
EER or COP
W/W
2.62

Dry bulb. air inlet. outdoor side


Wet bulb. air inlet. outdoor side
Dry bulb. air inlet. indoor side
Wet bulb. air inlet. indoor side
Dry bulb. air outlet. indoor side
Wet bulb. air outlet. indoor side
Atmospheric pressure
Vapour given by the humidifyer (indoor side)
Indoor unit air flow rate
Pressure drop in noozles
Diameter noozle 1
Diameter noozle 2
Cooling or heating capacity
Power input
EER or COP

Cooling

Heating

Mode

Sample
Method

1
Air enthalpy

Calorimeter
Cooling

Sample
Method

35.0
7.0
24.0
6.0
27.0
20.0
19.0
13.5
14.3
38.8
13.4
18.0
99.674 99.661
905.4
282
0.1
0.07
4 849
1 831
2.65

942.3
147.6
0.1
0.07
5 484
1 823
3.06

II.6.2 Laboratory 2
Sample

2
Cooling

Heating

Cooling

Heating

Air enthalpy

Heating

Calorimeter

Cooling

Air enthalpy

Heating

Calorimeter
Cooling

Method

Dry bulb. air inlet. outdoor side

34.83

7.03

35.15

7.04

35.11

7.01

35.05

7.04

Wet bulb. air inlet. outdoor side

26.84

6.00

26.82

6.01

28.35

6.01

23.67

6.01

Dry bulb. air inlet. indoor side

26.87

19.94

27.14

19.98

27.12

19.98

26.93

19.98

Wet bulb. air inlet. indoor side

18.83

13.53

19.09

13.61

19.07

13.83

18.90

13.73

Dry bulb. air outlet. indoor side

14.70

36.61

14.67

36.82

13.19

19.53

13.06

19.68

Mode

Wet bulb. air outlet. indoor side

Atmospheric pressure

kPa

Vapour given by the humidifyer (indoor side) kg/h


Indoor unit air flow rate

101.85 101.87 101.77 101.71 101.13 101.41 100.99 101.59


1.327

1.429

m3/h

658

685

654

694

Pressure drop in noozles

Pa

430

489

429

492

Diameter noozle 1

0.05

0.05

0.05

0.05

Diameter noozle 2

0.08

0.08

0.08

0.08

Cooling or heating capacity

3 704

3 912

3 741

3 875

3 688

3 998

3 730

3 944

Power input

1 321

1 249

1 350

1 230

1 312

1 231

1 331

1 199

EER or COP

W/W

2.80

3.13

2.77

3.15

2.81

3.25

2.80

3.29

Sample

Wet bulb. air inlet. indoor side

Dry bulb. air outlet. indoor side

Wet bulb. air outlet. indoor side

Atmospheric pressure
Vapour given by the humidifyer (indoor
side)
Indoor unit air flow rate
Pressure drop in noozles

m
m

Cooling or heating capacity

6.99

35.00

7.02

34.84

7.03

35.03

7.03

6.02

23.33

6.04

20.48

6.03

21.38

6.01

19.96 27.02 20.08 27.03 19.97 26.87 20.09


13.81 19.02 14.03 19.04 13.09 19.03 13.20
14.57 35.83

102.
kPa
1
1.38
kg/h
8
m3/
h
Pa

Diameter noozle 1
Diameter noozle 2

Heating

Dry bulb. air inlet. indoor side

Cooling

Heating

Wet bulb. air inlet. outdoor side

35.0
4
23.3
6
27.1
2
19.0
5

Cooling

Air enthalpy

Heating

Dry bulb. air inlet. outdoor side

Calorimeter

Cooling

Mode

Air enthalpy

Heating

Calorimeter
Cooling

Method

13.26 39.59

13.12 19.52
12.10 20.42
102.1 102.2 101.3 102.4 102.1 102.4 101.9
6
1
6
7
2
3
8
1.796
660

710

745

765

430

535

321

371

0.05
0.08

0.05
0.08

0.04
0.1

0.04
0.1

3 879 3 727 3 829 4 835 5 518 4 862 5 453

77

708
Power input

1
306

1 209 1 321 1 182 1 781 1 769 1 794 1 749

EER or COP

W/
W

2.84

3.21

2.82

3.24

2.71

3.12

2.71

3.12

II.6.3 Laboratory 3
1

Cooling

Heating

34.99

7.09

34.95

6.96

Wet bulb. air inlet. outdoor side

23.96

6.00

23.92

5.94

Dry bulb. air inlet. indoor side

26.98

20.02

26.92

19.95

Wet bulb. air inlet. indoor side

18.92

14.99

19.03

15.01

Dry bulb. air outlet. indoor side

13.31

39.91

13.42

39.97

Wet bulb. air outlet. indoor side

11.87
101.7
5

21.89
101.7
7

12.03
101.4
6

21.95
101.4
1

512

590

523.2

581.4

208.6
7
0.07

257.6
2
0.07

217.2
7
0.07

249.3
9
0.07

Atmospheric pressure

kPa

Vapour given by the humidifyer (indoor


side)

kg/h

Indoor unit air flow rate

m3/
h

Pressure drop in noozles

Pa

Diameter noozle 1

Heating

Heating

Air enthalpy

Cooling

Air enthalpy

Dry bulb. air inlet. outdoor side

Mode

Heating

Cooling

Method

2
Calorimeter

Diameter noozle 2

0.07

0.07

0.07

0.07

Cooling or heating capacity

3 514

3 971

3 582

3 930

Power input

W
W/
W

1 314

1 234

1 297

1 225

2.67

3.22

2.76

3.21

Dry bulb. air inlet. outdoor side


Wet bulb. air inlet. outdoor side
Dry bulb. air inlet. indoor side
Wet bulb. air inlet. indoor side
Dry bulb. air outlet. indoor side
Wet bulb. air outlet. indoor side
Atmospheric pressure
Vapour given by the humidifyer (indoor side)
Indoor unit air flow rate
Pressure drop in noozles

C
C
C
C
C
C
kPa
kg/h
m3/h
Pa

78

Heating

Calorimeter
Cooling

Heating

Cooling

Mode

4
Air enthalpy

Air enthalpy
Cooling

3
Calorimeter

Cooling

Sample
Method

Heating

EER or COP

Heating

Calorimeter

Cooling

Sample

34.99
6.96
24.03
5.98
26.97
19.96
19.03
15.00
13.45
39.88
12.02
21.89
101.63 101.65

34.96
6.98
24.04
5.96
27.04
20.09
19.03
15.03
13.80
40.20
12.59
22.01
102.03 102.05

516.7
566.2
212.08 237.11

764.3
828.5
466.11 507.91

Diameter noozle 1
Diameter noozle 2
Cooling or heating capacity
Power input
EER or COP

m
m
W
W
W/W

0.07
0.07
3 542
1 315
2.70

0.07
0.07
3 800
1 236
3.08

0.07
0.07
4 831
1 864
2.59

II.6.4 Laboratory 4
1

Wet bulb. air inlet. outdoor side

24.05

6.02

Dry bulb. air inlet. indoor side

26.98

20.08

Wet bulb. air inlet. indoor side

18.99

13.97

Dry bulb. air outlet. indoor side

13.58

40.27

Wet bulb. air outlet. indoor side

C
100.09
5

Atmospheric pressure

kPa

100.10
1

Vapour given by the humidifyer (indoor


side)

kg/h

1.230

20.0
4
13.9
6
40.0
5

100.
2
1.24
0

100.
1

Diameter noozle 2

Cooling or heating capacity

3 585

4 013

3
611
1
295

4
048
1
222

Power input

1 311

1 208

EER or COP

W/
W

2.73

3.32

2.79

3.31

34.9
8

6.92

79

Calorimeter
Heating

Mode

Heating

Calorimeter
Cooling

Method

4
Air enthalpy

Cooling

Sample

34.9
7

7.08

Air enthalpy
Heating

Dry bulb. air inlet. outdoor side

6.03

Cooling

Diameter noozle 1

Heating

Pressure drop in noozles

6.99

m3/
h
Pa

Cooling

Indoor unit air flow rate

34.9
8
24.0
4
27.0
1
18.9
9
13.4
6

Heating

6.98

Cooling

34.98

Air enthalpy

Heating

Calorimeter
Cooling

Dry bulb. air inlet. outdoor side

Mode

Cooling

Heating

Calorimeter
Cooling

Method

2
Air enthalpy
Heating

Sample

0.07
0.07
5 651
1 767
3.20

Wet bulb. air inlet. outdoor side

Dry bulb. air inlet. indoor side

Wet bulb. air inlet. indoor side

Dry bulb. air outlet. indoor side

Wet bulb. air outlet. indoor side

24.0
4
26.9
9
18.9
9
13.2
7

Atmospheric pressure

kPa

Vapour given by the humidifyer (indoor


side)

kg/h

23.9
9
27.0
1
18.9
9
13.2
8

6.01
20.0
2
13.9
8
40.3
4

100.
6
1.27
0

100.
5

100.
6
1.78
0

3
617
1
311

4
029
1
214

5
139
1
839

2.76

3.32

2.79

6.06
20.08
15.03
37.67
102.1
2

m3/
h
Pa

Indoor unit air flow rate


Pressure drop in noozles
Diameter noozle 1

Diameter noozle 2

Cooling or heating capacity

Power input

EER or COP

W/
W

5 552
1 718
3.23

II.7 APPENDIX B: RESULTS BY SAMPLE

II.7.1 Sample 1
SAMPLE 1
COOLING MODE

Results

Differences for each method

Differences for both methods

Capacity

Input

EER

Capacity

Input

EER

Capacity

Input

EER

Lab n1 calorimeter method

3 626

1 382

2.62

-0.3%

3.3%

-3.6%

0.2%

3.6%

-3.3%

Lab n2 calorimeter method

3 704

1 321

2.80

1.8%

-1.3%

3.1%

2.4%

-1.0%

3.3%

Lab n4 calorimeter method

3 585

1 311

2.73

-1.5%

-2.0%

0.5%

-0.9%

-1.7%

0.7%

Average calorimeter method

3 638

1 338

2.72

0.5%

0.3%

0.2%

Lab n1 air enthalpy method

3 541

1 326

2.67

-1.6%

-0.3%

-1.3%

-2.2%

-0.6%

-1.5%

Lab n2 air enthalpy method

3 741

1 350

2.77

4.0%

1.5%

2.4%

3.4%

1.2%

2.2%

Lab n3 air enthalpy method

3 514

1 314

2.67

-2.3%

-1.2%

-1.1%

-2.9%

-1.5%

-1.4%

Average air enthalpy method

3 599

1 330

2.70

-0.5%

-0.3%

-0.2%

Average both methods

3 618

1 334

2.71

Latent

Air flow

SAMPLE 1
COOLING MODE

Results

Differences for each method

T dry bulb T wet bulb Latent Air flow T dry bulb T wet bulb

Lab n1 calorimeter method

876

Lab n2 calorimeter method

906

0.2%

Lab n4 calorimeter method

841

Average calorimeter method

874

Lab n1 air enthalpy method

839

585

13.10

6.30

-7.3%

0.0%

0.2%

-1.8%

Lab n2 air enthalpy method

911

658

12.44

5.90

0.6%

12.5%

-4.8%

-8.1%

Lab n3 air enthalpy method

966

512

13.67

7.05

6.7%

-12.5%

4.6%

9.9%

3.7%
13.40

80

-3.9%

2.5%

Average air enthalpy method

905

Average both methods

890

SAMPLE 1
HEATING MODE

585

13.07

Results

6.42

Differences for each method

Differences for both methods

Capacity

Input

COP

Capacity

Input

COP

Capacity

Input

COP

Lab n2 calorimeter method

3 912

1 249

3.13

-1.3%

1.7%

-2.9%

-0.4%

2.0%

-2.4%

Lab n4 calorimeter method

4 013

1 208

3.32

1.3%

-1.7%

2.9%

2.2%

-1.4%

3.6%

Average calorimeter method

3 963

1 229

3.23

0.9%

0.3%

0.6%

Lab n1 air enthalpy method

3 861

1 203

3.21

-1.1%

-1.6%

0.5%

-1.7%

-1.8%

0.1%

Lab n2 air enthalpy method

3 875

1 230

3.15

-0.7%

0.6%

-1.4%

-1.3%

0.4%

-1.7%

Lab n3 air enthalpy method

3 971

1 234

3.22

1.8%

1.0%

0.8%

1.1%

0.8%

0.4%

Average air enthalpy method

3 902

1 222

3.19

-0.6%

-0.2%

-0.4%

Average both methods

3 926

1 225

3.21

Air flow

T dry bulb

Air flow

SAMPLE 1
HEATING MODE

Differences

Lab n4 calorimeter method

20.19

T dry bulb
10.1%

Lab n1 air enthalpy method

646

18.50

0.9%

0.9%

Lab n2 air enthalpy method

685

16.63

7.0%

-9.3%

Lab n3 air enthalpy method

590

19.89

-7.9%

8.5%

Average air enthalpy method

640

18.34

Capacity

Input

EER

Lab n2 calorimeter method

3 688

1 312

2.81

1.1%

0.7%

0.4%

Lab n4 calorimeter method

3 611

1 295

2.79

-1.1%

-0.7%

-0.4%

Average calorimeter method

3 650

1 304

2.80

-0.1%

Lab n2 air enthalpy method

3 730

1 331

2.80

2.0%

1.3%

0.7%

2.1%

1.7%

0.3%

Lab n3 air enthalpy method

3 582

1 297

2.76

-2.0%

-1.3%

-0.7%

-1.9%

-0.9%

-1.0%

Average air enthalpy method

3 656

1 314

2.78

0.1%

0.4%

-0.3%

Average both methods

3 653

1 309

2.79

Latent

Air flow

II.7.2 Sample 2
SAMPLE 2
COOLING MODE

Results

Differences for each method


Capacity

Input

SAMPLE 2
COOLING MODE

EER

Differences for both methods


Capacity

Input

EER

1.0%

0.2%

0.7%

-1.1%

-1.1%

0.0%

-0.4%

0.3%

Differences for each method

Lab n2 calorimeter method

976

Lab n4 calorimeter method

847

Average calorimeter method

912

T dry bulb T wet bulb Latent Air flow T dry bulb T wet bulb
7.1%
13.55

-7.1%

5.2%

Lab n2 air enthalpy method

905

654

12.26

5.84

-5.8%

11.1%

-4.8%

-9.0%

Lab n3 air enthalpy method

1 016

523

13.50

7.00

5.8%

-11.1%

4.8%

9.0%

Average air enthalpy method

961

589

12.88

6.42

Average both methods

936

81

SAMPLE 2
HEATING MODE

Results

Differences for each method

Capacity

Input

COP

Capacity

Lab n2 calorimeter method

3 998

1 231

3.25

Lab n4 calorimeter method

4 048

1 222

3.31

Average calorimeter method

4 023

1 227

3.28

Lab n2 air enthalpy method

3 944

1 199

3.29

0.2%

-1.1%

Lab n3 air enthalpy method

3 930

1 225

3.21

-0.2%

1.1%

Average air enthalpy method

3 937

1 212

3.25

Average both methods

3 980

1 219

3.26

Air flow

T dry bulb

Air flow

T dry bulb

SAMPLE 2
HEATING MODE

COP

Capacity

Input

COP

-0.6%

0.4%

-0.9%

0.5%

1.0%

-0.4%

0.6%

-0.4%

0.9%

1.7%

0.2%

1.4%

1.1%

0.6%

0.5%

1.3%

-0.9%

-1.7%

0.8%

-1.3%

-1.3%

0.5%

-1.7%

-1.1%

-0.6%

-0.5%

Differences

Lab n4 calorimeter method

20.01

8.6%

Lab n2 air enthalpy method

694

16.84

8.8%

-8.6%

Lab n3 air enthalpy method

581

20.02

-8.8%

8.6%

Average air enthalpy method

638

18.43

82

Differences for both methods

Input

II.7.3 Sample 3
SAMPLE 3
COOLING MODE

Results

Differences for each method

Differences for both methods

Capacity

Input

EER

Capacity

Input

EER

Capacity

Input

EER

Lab n1 calorimeter method

3 593

1 335

2.69

-1.3%

1.3%

-2.7%

-0.9%

0.9%

-1.9%

Lab n2 calorimeter method

3 708

1 306

2.84

1.9%

-0.9%

2.8%

2.2%

-1.3%

3.5%

Lab n4 calorimeter method

3 617

1 311

2.76

-0.6%

-0.5%

-0.1%

-0.3%

-0.9%

0.6%

Average calorimeter method

3 639

1 317

2.76

0.3%

-0.4%

0.7%

Lab n1 air enthalpy method

3 574

1 348

2.65

-1.1%

1.5%

-2.7%

-1.5%

1.9%

-3.4%

Lab n2 air enthalpy method

3 727

1 321

2.82

3.1%

-0.5%

3.6%

2.8%

-0.1%

2.8%

Lab n3 air enthalpy method

3 542

1 315

2.70

-2.0%

-1.0%

-0.9%

-2.3%

-0.6%

-1.7%

Average air enthalpy method

3 614

1 328

2.72

-0.3%

0.4%

-0.7%

Average both methods

3 627

1 323

2.74

Latent

Air flow

SAMPLE 3
COOLING MODE

Differences for each method


T dry bulb T wet bulb Latent Air flow T dry bulb T wet bulb

Lab n1 calorimeter method

867

Lab n2 calorimeter method

949

Lab n4 calorimeter method

868

Average calorimeter method

895

Lab n1 air enthalpy method

893

583

13.10

6.40

-3.8%

-0.6%

0.6%

-0.6%

Lab n2 air enthalpy method

892

660

12.45

5.90

-3.9%

12.5%

-4.4%

-8.3%

Lab n3 air enthalpy method

1 000

517

13.52

7.01

7.7%

-11.9%

3.8%

8.9%

Average air enthalpy method

928

587

13.02

6.44

Average both methods

911

SAMPLE 3
HEATING MODE

-3.1%
6.0%
13.72

Results

-3.0%

5.3%

Differences for each method

Differences for both methods

Capacity

Input

COP

Capacity

Input

COP

Capacity

Input

COP

Lab n2 calorimeter method

3 879

1 209

3.21

-1.9%

-0.2%

-1.7%

0.4%

-0.2%

0.6%

Lab n4 calorimeter method

4 029

1 214

3.32

1.9%

0.2%

1.7%

4.3%

0.2%

4.0%

Average calorimeter method

3 954

1 212

3.27

2.3%

0.0%

2.3%

Lab n1 air enthalpy method

3 783

1 216

3.11

-0.6%

0.4%

-1.0%

-2.1%

0.4%

-2.5%

Lab n2 air enthalpy method

3 829

1 182

3.24

0.7%

-2.4%

3.1%

-0.9%

-2.4%

1.5%

Lab n3 air enthalpy method

3 800

1 236

3.08

-0.1%

2.0%

-2.1%

-1.7%

2.0%

-3.6%

Average air enthalpy method

3 804

1 211

3.14

-1.6%

0.0%

-1.5%

Average both methods

3 864

1 211

3.19

Air flow

T dry bulb

Air flow

SAMPLE 3
HEATING MODE

Differences

Lab n4 calorimeter method

20.32

T dry bulb
12.3%

Lab n1 air enthalpy method

629

18.60

-0.9%

2.8%

Lab n2 air enthalpy method

710

15.75

11.8%

-12.9%

Lab n3 air enthalpy method

566

19.92

-10.8%

10.1%

Average air enthalpy method

635

18.09

83

II.7.4 Sample 4
SAMPLE 4

Differences for each method

Results

Differences for both methods

Capacity

Input

EER

Capacity

Input

EER

Capacity

Input

4 892

1 813

2.70

-0.2%

-0.1%

0.0%

0.2%

-0.4%

4 835

1 781

2.71

-1.4%

-1.8%

0.4%

-0.9%

-2.2%

5 139

1 839

2.79

4.8%

1.4%

3.3%

5.3%

1.0%

Australian laboratory

4 751

1 825

2.60

-3.1%

0.6%

-3.7%

-2.6%

0.2%

Average calorimeter
method

4 904

1 815

2.70

0.5%

-0.4%

Lab n1 air enthalpy method

4 849

1 831

2.65

0.0%

0.1%

0.0%

-0.6%

0.6%

Lab n2 air enthalpy method

4 862

1 794

2.71

0.3%

-2.0%

2.2%

-0.4%

-1.5%

Lab n3 air enthalpy method

4 831

1 864

2.59

-0.3%

1.9%

-2.2%

-1.0%

2.4%

Average air enthalpy


method

4 847

1 830

2.65

-0.7%

0.5%

Average both methods

4 880

1 821

2.68

Air flow

T dry
bulb

COOLING MODE
Lab n1 calorimeter method
Lab n2 calorimeter method
Lab n4 calorimeter method

SAMPLE 4
COOLING MODE
Lab n1 calorimeter method
Lab n2 calorimeter method
Lab n4 calorimeter method
Average calorimeter
method
Lab n1 air enthalpy method
Lab n2 air enthalpy method
Lab n3 air enthalpy method
Average air enthalpy
method
Average both methods

Latent

T wet
bulb

867
1 227
1 216

13.73

0.8
%
1.2
%
4.1
%
2.9
%
0.8
%
1.1
%
1.2
%
3.2
%
1.0
%

Differences for each method


LaAir
T dry
T wet
tent
flow
bulb
bulb
21.4
%
11.2
%
10.2
4.1%
%

1 103
994

905

12.70

5.60

1 347

745

13.61

6.93

1 182

764

13.24

6.44

1 174

805

13.18

6.32

15.4
%
14.7
%
0.7%

12.5%

-3.7%

-11.4%

-7.4%

3.2%

9.6%

-5.0%

0.4%

1.8%

1 139

SAMPLE 4

Differences for each method

Results

Differences for both methods

Capacity

Input

COP

Capacity

Input

COP

Capacity

Input

Lab n2 calorimeter method

5 518

1 769

3.12

-0.5%

0.1%

-0.6%

-0.4%

-0.2%

Lab n4 calorimeter me-

5 552

1 718

3.23

0.1%

-2.8%

2.9%

0.2%

-3.1%

HEATING MODE

EER

84

COP
0.4
%
3.1

thod
Australian laboratory

5 574

1 813

3.07

Average calorimeter
method

5 548

1 767

3.14

Lab n1 air enthalpy method

5 484

1 823

3.06

-0.8%

2.4%

Lab n2 air enthalpy method

5 453

1 749

3.12

-1.4%

Lab n3 air enthalpy method

5 651

1 767

3.20

2.2%

Average air enthalpy


method

5 529

1 780

3.13

Average both methods

5 539

1 773

3.13

Air
flow

T dry
bulb

Air flow

SAMPLE 4
HEATING MODE
Lab n4 calorimeter method
Lab n1 air enthalpy method
Lab n2 air enthalpy method
Lab n3 air enthalpy method
Average air enthalpy
method

0.5%

Differences
T dry
bulb

17.59

-9.7%

942

18.80

11.5%

-3.4%

765

19.50

-9.5%

0.2%

829

20.11

-2.0%

3.3%

845

19.47

85

2.6%

-2.2%

0.6%

2.2%

0.2%

-0.4%

-2.1%

-1.0%

2.8%

-1.7%

-0.2%

-1.5%

-1.4%

-0.7%

2.3%

2.0%

-0.3%

-0.2%

0.4%

%
2.0
%
0.2
%
2.3
%
0.4
%
2.1
%
0.2
%

II.8 APPENDIX C: RESULTS BY LABORATORY

II.8.1 Laboratory 1
Calorimeter method
COOLING MODE
Sample 1
Sample 3
Sample 4
Average

Results
Capacity Input EER
3 626
1 382 2.62
3 593
1 335 2.69
4 892
1 813 2.70

Latent
876
867
867

Results
EER Latent
2.67
839
2.65
893
2.65
994

Differences for each method


Differences for both methods
Capacity
Input
EER Latent Capacity Input
EER
-0.3%
3.3%
-3.6% 0.2%
0.2%
3.6%
-3.3%
-1.3%
1.3%
-2.7% -3.1%
-0.9%
0.9%
-1.9%
-0.2%
-0.1%
0.0% -21.4%
0.2%
-0.4%
0.8%
-0.6%
1.5%
-2.1% -8.1%
-0.2%
1.4%
-1.5%

Air enthalpy method


COOLING MODE
Sample 1
Sample 3
Sample 4
Average

Capacity
3 541
3 574
4 849

Input
1 326
1 348
1 831

Differences for each method


Differences for both methods
Air flow Capacity Input
EER
Latent Air flow Capacity
Input
EER
585
-1.6% -0.3% -1.3%
-7.3%
0.0%
-2.2%
-0.6%
-1.5%
583
-1.1%
1.5% -2.7%
-3.8%
-0.6%
-1.5%
1.9%
-3.4%
905
0.0%
0.1%
0.0%
-15.4%
12.5%
-0.6%
0.6%
-1.1%
-0.9%
0.4% -1.3%
-8.8%
4.0%
-1.4%
0.6%
-2.0%

Air enthalpy method


HEATING MODE
Sample 1
Sample 3
Sample 4
Average

Capacity
3 861
3 783
5 484

Results
Differences for each method
Differences for both methods
Input COP Air flow Capacity
Input
COP Air flow Capacity Input
COP
1 203 3.21
646
-1.1%
-1.6%
0.5%
0.9%
-1.7%
-1.8%
0.1%
1 216 3.11
629
-0.6%
0.4%
-1.0% -0.9%
-2.1%
0.4%
-2.5%
1 823 3.06
942
-0.8%
2.4%
-2.1% 11.5%
-1.0%
2.8%
-2.3%
-0.8%
0.4%
-0.9% 3.8%
-1.6%
0.5%
-1.6%

86

II.8.2 Laboratory 2
Calorimeter method
COOLING MODE
Sample 1
Sample 2
Sample 3
Sample 4
Average
Air enthalpy method
COOLING MODE
Sample 1
Sample 2
Sample 3
Sample 4
Average
Calorimeter method
HEATING MODE
Sample 1
Sample 2
Sample 3
Sample 4
Average
Air enthalpy method
HEATING MODE
Sample 1
Sample 2
Sample 3
Sample 4
Average

Capacity
3 704
3 688
3 708
4 835

Capacity
3 741
3 730
3 727
4 862

Results
Input EER
1 321 2.80
1 312 2.81
1 306 2.84
1 781 2.71

Input
1 350
1 331
1 321
1 794

Results
Capacity Input
3 912
1 249
3 998
1 231
3 879
1 209
5 518
1 769

Capacity
3 875
3 944
3 829
5 453

Latent
906
976
949
1 227

Results
EER Latent
2.77
911
2.80
905
2.82
892
2.71
1 347

Differences for each method


Capacity
Input
EER
Latent
1.8%
-1.3%
3.1%
3.7%
1.1%
0.7%
0.4%
7.1%
1.9%
-0.9%
2.8%
6.0%
-1.4%
-1.8%
0.4%
11.2%
0.8%
-0.8%
1.6%
7.0%

Air flow
658
654
660
745

Differences for each method


Capacity
Input
EER
Latent
4.0%
1.5%
2.4%
0.6%
2.0%
1.3%
0.7%
-5.8%
3.1%
-0.5%
3.6%
-3.9%
0.3%
-2.0%
2.2%
14.7%
2.4%
0.1%
2.2%
1.4%

Differences for each method


COP Capacity
Input
COP
3.13
-1.3%
1.7%
-2.9%
3.25
-0.6%
0.4%
-0.9%
3.21
-1.9%
-0.2%
-1.7%
3.12
-0.5%
0.1%
-0.6%
-1.1%
0.5%
-1.5%

Results
Input COP
1 230 3.15
1 199 3.29
1 182 3.24
1 749 3.12

Air flow
685
694
710
765

-1.1%

87

Differences for both methods


Air flow
Capacity
Input
EER
12.5%
3.4%
1.2%
2.2%
11.1%
2.1%
1.7%
0.3%
12.5%
2.8%
-0.1%
2.8%
-7.4%
-0.4%
-1.5%
1.2%
7.2%
2.0%
0.3%
1.6%

Differences for both methods


Capacity
Input
COP
-0.4%
2.0%
-2.4%
0.5%
1.0%
-0.4%
0.4%
-0.2%
0.6%
-0.4%
-0.2%
-0.4%
0.0%
0.6%
-0.7%

Differences for each method


Capacity
Input
COP
Air flow
-0.7%
0.6%
-1.4%
7.0%
0.2%
-1.1%
1.3%
8.8%
0.7%
-2.4%
3.1%
11.8%
-1.4%
-1.7%
-0.2%
-9.5%
-0.3%

Differences for both methods


Capacity
Input
EER
2.4%
-1.0%
3.3%
1.0%
0.2%
0.7%
2.2%
-1.3%
3.5%
-0.9%
-2.2%
1.2%
1.2%
-1.0%
2.2%

0.7%

4.5%

Differences for both methods


Capacity
Input
COP
-1.3%
0.4%
-1.7%
-0.9%
-1.7%
0.8%
-0.9%
-2.4%
1.5%
-1.5%
-1.4%
-0.4%
-1.2%

-1.3%

0.0%

II.8.3 Laboratory 3
Air enthalpy method
COOLING MODE
Sample 1
Sample 2
Sample 3
Sample 4
Average

Capacity
3 514
3 582
3 542
4 831

Input
1 314
1 297
1 315
1 864

Results
EER Latent
2.67
966
2.76 1 016
2.70 1 000
2.59 1 182

Air enthalpy method


HEATING MODE
Sample 1
Sample 2
Sample 3
Sample 4
Average

Capacity
3 971
3 930
3 800
5 651

Results
Differences for each method
Differences for both methods
Input COP Air flow Capacity
Input
COP Air flow Capacity Input
COP
1 234 3.22
590
1.8%
1.0%
0.8% -7.9%
1.1%
0.8%
0.4%
1 225 3.21
581
-0.2%
1.1%
-1.3% -8.8%
-1.3%
0.5%
-1.7%
1 236 3.08
566
-0.1%
2.0%
-2.1% -10.8%
-1.7%
2.0%
-3.6%
1 767 3.20
829
2.2%
-0.7%
2.3% -2.0%
2.0%
-0.3%
2.1%
0.9%
0.8%
-0.1% -7.4%
0.1%
0.7%
-0.7%

Air flow
512
523
517
764

Differences for each method


Differences for both methods
Capacity Input
EER
Latent Air flow Capacity
Input
EER
-2.3% -1.2% -1.1%
6.7%
-12.5%
-2.9%
-1.5% -1.4%
-2.0% -1.3% -0.7%
5.8%
-11.1%
-1.9%
-0.9% -1.0%
-2.0% -1.0% -0.9%
7.7%
-11.9%
-2.3%
-0.6% -1.7%
-0.3%
1.9% -2.2%
0.7%
-5.0%
-1.0%
2.4%
-3.2%
-1.7% -0.4% -1.2%
5.2%
-10.1%
-2.0%
-0.2% -1.8%

88

II.8.4 Laboratory 4
Calorimeter method
COOLING MODE
Sample 1
Sample 2
Sample 3
Sample 4
Average
Calorimeter method
HEATING MODE
Sample 1
Sample 2
Sample 3
Sample 4
Average

Capacity
3 585
3 611
3 617
5 139

Results
Input EER
1 311 2.73
1 295 2.79
1 311 2.76
1 839 2.79

Results
Capacity
Input
4 013
1 208
4 048
1 222
4 029
1 214
5 552
1 718

COP
3.32
3.31
3.32
3.23

Latent
841
847
868
1 216

Differences for each method


Capacity
Input
EER
Latent
-1.5%
-2.0%
0.5%
-3.9%
-1.1%
-0.7%
-0.4%
-7.1%
-0.6%
-0.5%
-0.1%
-3.0%
4.8%
1.4%
3.3%
10.2%
0.4%
-0.4%
0.8%
-0.9%

Differences for each method


Capacity
Input
COP
1.3%
-1.7%
2.9%
0.6%
-0.4%
0.9%
1.9%
0.2%
1.7%
0.1%
-2.8%
2.9%
1.0%
-1.1%
2.1%

89

Differences for both methods


Capacity
Input
EER
-0.9%
-1.7%
0.7%
-1.1%
-1.1%
0.0%
-0.3%
-0.9%
0.6%
5.3%
1.0%
4.1%
0.7%
-0.7%
1.4%

Differences for both methods


Capacity
Input
COP
2.2%
-1.4%
3.6%
1.7%
0.2%
1.4%
4.3%
0.2%
4.0%
0.2%
-3.1%
3.1%
2.1%
-1.0%
3.0%

II.9 APPENDIX D: UNCERTAINTIES CALCULATIONS

II.9.1 Laboratory 1
Sample
1

Sample
1

Sample
1

Calorimeter method. cooling


Cooling capacity
Power input
EER
Cooling capacity
Power input
EER
Cooling capacity
Power input
EER

W
W
W/W
W
W
W/W
W
W
W/W

Value
3 626
1 382
2.62
3 593
1 335
2.69
4 892
1 813
2.70

Uncertainty
34.2
3.9
0.05
34.2
3.9
0.05
47.3
5.3
0.06

Uncertainty %
0.9%
0.3%
1.9%
1.0%
0.3%
1.9%
1.0%
0.3%
2.2%

Air enthalpy method. cooling


Cooling capacity
Power input
EER
Cooling capacity
Power input
EER
Cooling capacity
Power input
EER

W
W
W/W
W
W
W/W
W
W
W/W

Value
3 541
1 326
2.67
3 574
1 348
2.65
4 849
1 831
2.65

Uncertainty
83.6
7.8
0.068
83.6
7.8
0.068
112.4
10.6
0.064

Uncertainty %
2.4%
0.6%
2.5%
2.3%
0.6%
2.6%
2.3%
0.6%
2.4%

Air enthalpy method. heating


Heating capacity
Power input
COP
Heating capacity
Power input
COP
Heating capacity
Power input
COP

Value
3 861
1 203
3.21
3 783
1 216
3.11
5 484
1 823
3.06

Uncertainty
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
* Not given

Uncertainty %

W
W
W/W
W
W
W/W
W
W
W/W

90

II.9.2 Laboratory 2
Sample
1

Sample
1

Sample
1

Sample
1

Calorimeter method. cooling


Cooling capacity
Power input
EER
Cooling capacity
Power input
EER
Cooling capacity
Power input
EER
Cooling capacity
Power input
EER

Value
3 704
1 321
2.80
3 688
1 312
2.81
3 708
1 306
2.84
4 835
1 781
2.71

Uncertainty
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*

Uncertainty %

W
W
W/W
W
W
W/W
W
W
W/W
W
W
W/W

Calorimeter method. heating


Heating capacity
Power input
COP
Heating capacity
Power input
COP
Heating capacity
Power input
COP
Heating capacity
Power input
COP

Value
3 912
1 249
3.13
3 998
1 231
3.25
3 879
1 209
3.21
5 518
1 769
3.12

Uncertainty
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*

Uncertainty %

W
W
W/W
W
W
W/W
W
W
W/W
W
W
W/W

Air enthalpy method. cooling


Cooling capacity
Power input
EER
Cooling capacity
Power input
EER
Cooling capacity
Power input
EER
Cooling capacity
Power input
EER

Value
3 541
1 326
2.67
3 730
1 331
2.80
3 727
1 321
2.82
4 862
1 794
2.71

Uncertainty
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*

Uncertainty %

W
W
W/W
W
W
W/W
W
W
W/W
W
W
W/W

Air enthalpy method. heating


Heating capacity
Power input
COP
Cooling capacity
Power input
EER
Heating capacity
Power input
COP
Heating capacity
Power input
COP

Value
3 875
1 230
3.15
3 944
1 199
3.29
3 829
1 182
3.24
5 453
1 749
3.12

Uncertainty
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
* Not given

Uncertainty %

W
W
W/W
W
W
W/W
W
W
W/W
W
W
W/W

91

* Not given

II.9.3 Laboratory 3
Sample
1

Sample
1

Air enthalpy method. cooling


Cooling capacity
Power input
EER
Cooling capacity
Power input
EER
Cooling capacity
Power input
EER
Cooling capacity
Power input
EER

W
W
W/W
W
W
W/W
W
W
W/W
W
W
W/W

Value
3 514
1 314
2.67
3 582
1 297
2.76
3 542
1 315
2.70
4 831
1 864
2.59

Uncertainty
89.0
2.9
0.07
86.2
3.0
0.07
88.0
0.8
0.07
104.3
3.8
0.06

Uncertainty %
2.5%
0.2%
2.6%
2.4%
0.2%
2.5%
2.5%
0.1%
2.6%
2.2%
0.2%
2.3%

Air enthalpy method. heating


Heating capacity
Power input
COP
Cooling capacity
Power input
EER
Heating capacity
Power input
COP
Heating capacity
Power input
COP

W
W
W/W
W
W
W/W
W
W
W/W
W
W
W/W

Value
3 971
1 234
3.22
3 930
1 225
3.21
3 800
1 236
3.08
5 651
1 767
3.20

Uncertainty
98.7
3.4
0.09
97.4
2.8
0.08
96.6
1.4
0.08
113.0
4.8
0.07

Uncertainty %
2.5%
0.3%
2.8%
2.5%
0.2%
2.5%
2.5%
0.1%
2.6%
2.0%
0.3%
2.2%

92

II.9.4 Laboratory 4
Sample
1

Sample
1

Calorimeter method. cooling


Cooling capacity
Power input
EER
Cooling capacity
Power input
EER
Cooling capacity
Power input
EER
Cooling capacity
Power input
EER
Calorimeter method. heating
Heating capacity
Power input
COP
Heating capacity
Power input
COP
Heating capacity
Power input
COP
Heating capacity
Power input
COP

W
W
W/W
W
W
W/W
W
W
W/W
W
W
W/W

Value
3 585
1 311
2.73
3 611
1 295
2.79
3 617
1 311
2.76
5 139
1 839
2.79

Uncertainty
33.5
*
*
32.9
*
*
31.2
*
*
42.2
*
*

Uncertainty %
0.9%

W
W
W/W
W
W
W/W
W
W
W/W
W
W
W/W

Value
4 013
1 208
3.32
4 048
1 222
3.31
4 029
1 214
3.32
5 552
1 718
3.23

Uncertainty
108.8
*
*
109.1
*
*
109.6
*
*
118.8
*
*
* Not given

Uncertainty %
2.7%

93

0.9%

0.9%

0.8%

2.7%

2.7%

2.1%